
M 

WML 



mmSSBm 

: Hi ' 

mm 



M 

: r .- ■ • ...- 



®$Et 




3* .-»,<^,'" S ^,m., <^ '-"'^ 












S A, 



^' *■- 




-V/>V 



^ 




w 






1 ^^ 




% ''/ 






wvx w %^ 



.S ^ 



IS ^ 






xS ^ 



# 



^'%- /,/'% ; ( #^v ",#*vv 










^ 




w • 






'r "ft 



«fc> 









\0 V 



'■ <£ 



^>. _^ 



pv;*,°'.% c? v ^:-'.% cp^^r"'.^ 



!l V , ^, .« " «WA "^ * " .^^A*" ^ 



CF 



'•^^ < A-^' ,,l //:v%V" ^:%S 










<* 












^ 9* 







s 






V 



. %<** \># : -mk\ ^ 



A *. 



& 













'"%..# 



v «. ■< * » , -^ 




<<, N 



.4 o. 




:\^ 



N J$ 



c 


























t A-v *\ %'a^ : 






* .r^ 



£* ^ 



V ^ 










ARGUMENT 

IN DEFENCE OP THE 

REV. ELIPHALET NOTT, D. D., 

PRESIDENT OF UNION COLLEGE, 



AND IN ANSWER TO THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM BY 

LEVINUS VANDERHEYDEN AND JAMES W. BEEKMAN; 

PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OP THE SENATE, APPOINTED 
TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN PECUNIARY AFFAIRS OP 



XT 3XT I <3 3ST O O L IjEOE, 

I \ 

at 



By JOHN cTsPI 



WITH A SYNOPSIS OF ITS CONTENTS; 

TO WHICH ARE APPENDED THE 

PRINCIPAL DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS 

Produced in behalf of Dr. Nott, and the Trustees of the College, before the Committee : 

TOGETHER WITH SOME OP THE TESTIMONY, STATEMENTS, &C, ON THE PART 

[OF THE PROSECUTION; WITH A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF, 

AND AN EXPLANATORY NOTE. 



ALBANY: 

('. VAN BENTHUYSENj PRINTER TO THE LEGISLATURE, 
No. 407 Broadway. 

1853. 



za1\ 









Resolution of the Senate for the appointment of the 
Committee of inquiry. 



State of New- York, ? 
In Senate, March 28, 1853. $ 

Resolved, That the report oi the majority, and of the 
minority of the commissioners, heretofore appointed by the 
Senate, to investigate the pecuniary affairs of Union Col- 
lege, be referred to a committee of three members of the 
Senate, to investigate the matters specified in the Senate 
resolutions, of June and July, 1851 5 with power to send 
for persons and papers, and if necessary, to sit after the 
adjournment of the present session of the Senate ; and, after 
a full and fair hearing of all parties and persons desiring to 
be heard before them, to report the results of their inqui- 
ries, and their opinions thereon ; and the said committee 
shall make up and sign their report, by the first day of 
August next, and shall deposit the same with the Attorney 
General of this State, by that day, whose duty it shall be, 
forthwith, thereafter, (if, in his opinion, there are good rea- 
sons therefor,) to take such legal proceedings against the 
Trustees of Union College, or against the President there- 
of, or against all or any, or either of them, or against any 
person connected with said college, who may have been 
guilty of improper conduct, or of any unlawful acts. 

Resolved, further, that the Attorney General, present any 

report, so left with him, to the next Legislature, on the 

first day of its session, in order that they may take such 

further action in the premises, as may seem to them right. 

By order of the Senate, 

IRA P. BARNES, Clerk, 



/2p 



iV RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE. 

In Senate, March 29, 1853. 
Ordered that Messrs. Vanderbilt, Jones and Ward, con- 
stitute the committee, provided for in the foregoing reso- 
lution* 

By order, IRA P. BARNES, Clerk. 

[By subsequent resolutions, the time for depositing the 
report of the committee with the Attorney General, was 
extended to November 1, 1853.] 



Synopsis of the following Argument. 



Introduction 5 the issues involved respecting the reputation 
of the Trustees of Union College, and of Dr. Nott, and 
the degree of evidence which should be required to sus- 
tain the charges, fol. 1 to 10 

By whom the charges are made, .......*. 10 to 12 

Difficulties of the inquiry arising from the 
death of most of the actors in the scenes, 
the old age of those who survive, the con- 
fusion in the books, caused by neglect or 
incompetency, and the absence of vouch- 
ers and documents, 12 to 17 

History of the events that led to the ap- 
pointment of this committee of the Senate ; 
the efforts to prejudice the case, and pre- 
vent a defence by the Trustees and officers 
of the college ; the first commission, its 
complexion, additions to it ; specific and 
peremptory directions not complied with; 
partial report of February, 1852, its pur- 
pose to mislead and prejudice, 17 to 43 

Report of March 5, 1853, containing the ac- 
countant's statements ; refusal to give any 
opportunity for explanation or defence ; 
promises to do so; manly course of Messrs. 
Buel and Van Rensselaer > 43 to 52 

Value of the report as authority ; time ta^ 
ken by commissioners to examine state- 
ments ; no explanation of the principles 
and data given ; qualifications of mem- 
bers of the majority, and evidence that 



Vi SYNOPSIS. 

they could not have examined the report 

of the accountant, 52 to 63 

Value of the authority of the accountant ; 
his abuse of his authority ; acted as " Vice 
Chancellor"; his purpose; acted as ac- 
countant, prosecutor, counsel and wit- 
ness ; intemperate zeal and tenacity ; vol- 
unteering his communication to the Sen- 
ate after his duties had ceased ; aspersions 
on Dr. Nott ; printed by co-operation of 
J. W. Beekman ; object of the two ; libel 
on Dr. Nott by Vanderheyden ; proved 
by himself to be false ; his conduct in 
insulting Dr. Nott; a dangerous wit- 
ness ; his statement of the accounts un- 
intelligible ; personal explanations ne- 
cessary to comprehend them ; has stulti- 
fied his own accounts by acknowledging 
errors to a large amount; has made 
charges contradicted by his own report, 
and the college books, and admitted to be 
erroneous, yet has sworn to the accuracy 
of the accounts, including these items ; 
his opportunities for indulging hostility ; 
his capacity as an accountant ; its extent ; 
an unsafe witness, 63 to 88 

Resolution of Senate appointing a commit- 
tee, and resolution referred to in it, pre- 
scribing the objects of the inquiry, 4 88 to 93 

1st inquiry, whether the funds granted by 
the State, have been duly applied ; refe- 
rences to books of the college, showing 
the grants and their application, 93 to 97 

2nd inquiry, investment of permanent funds 
and their safety ; references to books of 
college, showing them, and proof of their 
sufficiency, 97 to 102 

3d inquiry, whether funds of the college 
have been applied to personal purposes, 
general answer, 102 to 106 



SYNOPSIS. VU 

Preliminary to specific answers ; history 
of the college, and of Dr. Nott's connex- 
ion with it; of the laws for its relief; pro- 
ceedings under them ; agreements and 
settlements with Yates & Mclntyre, and 
their successors, and between the college 
and the President, 108 to 183 

Particular points and periods of the history ; 
charter of the college, and its feeble con- 
dition down to the year 1804, 108 to 112 

Election of Dr. Nott to the Presidency, his 
qualifications, his sacrifice of his envia- 
ble position ; difficulties before him, his 
great object, 1 12 to 119 

Legislative endowments obtained by him ; 
how lotteries came to be granted, reasons 
why the full avails were not realised, 
grants particularly by act of 1814, neg- 
lect of managers, failure to raise the sums 
granted, % 119 to 130 

Efforts to obtain fruits of the grants, act of 
1822, its motive and main provisions ; un- 
willingness of the other institutions in- 
terested, to assume the responsibilities 
prescribed by the act ; proposition of Dr. 
Nott to purchase their interests, 130 to 136 

Trustees of Union College assented, and com- 
mitted entire management and supervi- 
sion of lotteries to Dr. Nott, and vested 
him with all their powers ; his purchase 
of the rights of the other institutions, . . 136 to 140 

How the amounts to be drawn, and the time 
of drawing, and the annual average 
amount of tickets, to be ascertained ; cer- 
tificates of Comptroller Savage, and of 
Deputy Comptroller, calculations show- 
ing the amount ; mode of proceeding to 
raise the amount of the grants ; compen- 
sation for supervision and management ; 



Vlll SYNOPSIS. 

allowance to contractors for tickets ; net 

proceeds for the grant ; its present value, 140 to 151 

Contract with Yates & Mclntyre for the 
sale of the right to the whole amount 
of the tickets, at the present value ; and 
contract to pay for supervision and man- 
agement, 1 51 to 1 55 

Proceedings of Yates & Mclntyre ; their em- 
barrassments; applications for aid; new 
stipulations ; relief given ; Yates & Mel. 
becoming interested in other lotteries, 
appeal to Dr. Nott for further aid, and 
entered into new agreement with him, in 
which the college had no interest, 162 to 165 

Lottery closed in four years and seven 

months ; how accomplished, 165 to 166 

Settlement with Yates & Mclntyre of Aug. 
1, 1828 ; upon what principles made ; re- 
sults of it ; profits beyond amount of 
grants ; division of them between the col- 
lege and D; Nott,* 166 to 174 

Claim of the accountant for those assigned 

to Dr. Nott, 174 

Suit in Chancery by Dr. Nott against Y. & 
McL; the nature of his claims ; demurrer 
by the defendants ; suit by Y. & Mel. 
against the Trustees and Dr. Nott ; their 
answ r ers ; settlement of the controversies, 
and bond given by Y. & McL and their 
associates for $150,000, 175 to 184 

Discussion of the question, to whom that 
bond, and the payments made on it, be- 
longed, , 185 to 230 

Discussion of the question respecting the 

President's, or 2£ per cent fund, 231 to 302 

Discussion of the claim of the accountant 
to that portion of the notes assigned to 
Dr. Nott, which were taken on the settle- 
ment with Y. & McL for profits beyond 
the grants, 302 to 370 



synopsis. ix 

General views of the three last subjects, and 
the inefficacy of any attempts to disturb the 
settlement of them made by the parties, . . 370 to 376 
4th inquiry, whether losses have occurred, 
and the causes of them ; total amount al- 
leged in 56 years, about 1 per cent on re- 
ceipts, 376 to 379 

Investments charged to Dr. Nott by accoun- 
tant, not charged by the books of the 
college ; his grounds ; absurdity of his 
assuming office of Chancellor, and char- 
ging one only of a committee ; extent of 
responsibility of trustee of public corpo- 
ration; his strange theory for charging 
Dr. Nott $ bond and mortgage of E. James 
paid ; note of J. A. Yates abandoned by 
accountant ; comparison of amount of 
alleged losses by bad investments, with 
amount of gains derived by the college 
thro' the purchases, &c. by Dr. Nott, with 

his private means, 379 to 396 

5th inquiry, whether the President, or any 
other officer, has participated in the prof is 
of lotteries belonging to the college, and 

general answer, 396 to 398 

Examination of the account made up by 
Mr. Vanderheyden> between the college 
and Dr. Nott, exhibiting a balance against 
him of $885,789.62 ; strange that its exis- 
tence never before discovered ; false name 
of loans given to transactions ; their real 

character, 398, 399 

Examination of each charge ; stale item 50 
years old, how met ; charge as loans of 
payments to Dr. N. of interest advanced 
by him ; charge of interest, when princi- 
pal paid 15 years ago ; other " loans " dis- 
posed of, ... ! .-. 400 to 413 

Items of 22 notes of Y. & McL, and balance 
[Synopsis.] 2 



% SYNOPSIS. 

of Presidents fund; Commercial Bank 
stock, erroneous charges paid for by as- 
signees of H. Nott & Co.; bad invest- 
ments ; folly of charge for turnpike stock, 413 to 421 

Charges for Hunter farm and Stuyvesant 
Cove, admitted, but amount greater than 
put down by the accountant ; brief ex- 
planation of these sales, 421 to 426 

Rents, taxes and mortgage on property while 
it belonged to the college ; stock in Pou- 
drette company ; singular withholding of 
credit ; every item in the account shown 
to be erroneous, except those for the lands, 427 to 432 

Credits not given Dr. Nott, Bliss' bond, pay- 
ments on the $1 50,000 bond, 432 to 440 

True statements of these transactions ; mere 
changes in the forms of donations ; a bal- 
ance in favor of Dr. Nott, instead of the 
erroneous one against him, 440 to 447 

Interest account made up against Dr. Nott, 
false, carried into accountant's summary 
of condition of the college, and renders 
it false, 447 to 448 

Other charges found since making his re- 
port, answered, 449 to 451 

Erroneous principle of accountant, in char^ 
ging interest received, and not allowing 
it on expenditures ; account of receipts 
and expenditures by college, and diffe- 
rences between it and that of the accoun- 
tant, 452 to 456 

Detailed objections to accountant's summa- 
ry, and the summary of the Treasurer, re- 
ferred to, 456to457 

Results of differences in the Treasurer's 
statement of receipts and expenditures, 
from that of the accountant, 458 to 462 

Charges by J. W. Beekman, re-hash of those 
made by him in the Senate : 

1st. Circulating a pamphlet containing a mu- 



SYNOPSIS. si 

tilated copy of the bill of Y. & Mcl. s disr 

proved by producing the original bill, and 

showing that the one produced by him 

was not filed until six months after the 

pamphlet was printed ; evidence of his 

knowledge of the falsity of the charge, , 462 to 470 
2nd. That profits arising out of stipulations 

respecting Albany lottery, &c, belonged 

to the college ; absurd grounds for the 

charge, abandoned by the accountant, . , 470 to 476 
Explanation of causes of Mr. Beekman's 

course ; hostility of his connexions against 

Dr. Nott ; conduct of his connexions and 

their motive, and motives of Mr. Henry 

Yates, 477 to 485 

Charges by J. W. Beekman and L. Vander- 

heyden, jointly, 485 to 489 

1st. That Dr. Nott had given no considera- 
tion for Bliss' bond and mortgage, which 

he had assigned to the college, and a tri- 
fling consideration for the other half of 

Stuyvesant C jve ; answers, contradiction 

of Bliss by other proof; state of his mind ; 

positive proof of the consideration, and 

Bliss' estimate of the value of the prop- 
erty, , 489 to 496 

2nd. That the half of the Hunter farm was 

transferred to the college, at a large over- 
valuation; answers, Gen. Johnson's, Bliss' 

and Gen. Dix's estimate of its value, and 

circumstances to corroborate it, 497 to 500 

3d. That on sale of the same property to 

Dr. Nott, the College lost large sums; 

answer, not to be regarded as money trans- 
actions but changes in form of donations, 

and any consideration nominal, 500 to 501 

Remarks on the purpose of these purchases, 

to improve the property and convey it to 

the College; legal difficulties in the way 



xii 



SYNOPSIS. 



of such conveyances, and causes of de- 
lay; how overcome, and trust deed exe- 
cuted and delivered, and Will executed 

confirming it, 505 to 508 

4th. A fraudulent sale by Dr. Nott to the 

College of stock of the Bank of Hudson, 

.after it had become bankrupt ; answer, 

it was not sold to the College, but was 

an original subscription for its benefit 

under an act of the Legislature, on which 

Dr. Nott advanced the amount and re- 
tained the stock as security, and when 

the bank broke the trustees by resolution 

directed the advance to be paid on the 

transfer of the stock, recognizing it as 

theirs, 508 to 514 

5th. An alleged mutilation of the college 

books by inserting an account for the ex- 
amination of the accountant ; the most 

absurd of all the charges, 51 5 to 520 

Reiteration of some of these charges by 

Vanderheyden in a newspaper, . * 521 , 522 

His complaints of Dr. Nott's directing or 

making entries in the books ; answer : his 

false charge about circulating a pamph- 
let that did not fully state sums received 

from lotteries. His effort to nullify effect 

of E. James 5 testimony respecting the 

manner in which the printed accounts 

are made up. Mr. Holland corroborates 

Mr. James' ; testimony in favor of V.'s 

capacity, if correct, indicates the cause 

of his present failure ; specimens of his 

skill, 522 to 533 

Contrast between these statements, and that 

of Silas Wright and Wm. James ; cause of 

difference. Reports of other committees 

and trustees, annual committees, tre$- 



synopsis. xiii 

surer's annual summary, none of them 
discovered loans to Dr. Nott, misapplica- 
tion of funds or debts against him ; which 
can be relied on, in the conflict 1 533 to 538 

Attempt of V. to deceive the committee re- 
specting amounts received by President 
from lotteries. True exhibit of amounts 
received by him and the college from 
that source, showing that the college has 
received the whole ; and proof of the 
fact, by statements showing that the col- 
lege is now worth more than a million of 
dollars, 539 to 548 

Conclusion : review of college history shows 
to whom its prosperity is owing ; abuse 
and persecution of the President ; suspi- 
cions respecting validity of his deed of 
trust, heretofore executed ; his proceed- 
ings to perfect it by another, confirming it 
and vesting the title in the college, in 
trust for educational purposes, of proper- 
ty worth $600,000 ; key to all the acts of 
his life ; how far evidence of fraud and 
robbery ; Dr. Nott as a man of business ; 
causes for irregularities, if any chargea- 
ble to him ; his motives not personal ; but 
all his proceedings marked by integrity, 
honesty of purpose and disinterestedness, 548 to 573 



ARGUMENT 

In defence of the Rev. Eliphalet Nott, President of Union 
College, and in answer to the charges made against him 
by Levinus Vanderheyden and James W. Beekman : pre- 
sented before the Committee of the Senate appointed to 
investigate certain pecuniary affairs of Union College, by 
John C. Spencer. 

I return you gentlemen, the thanks of my friend and 
client, for whom I am a volunteer here, and my own, for 
the great patience you have evinced during this intricate, 
protracted, tedious and extraordinary investigation. 

It involves the character of some of the most distinguish- 
ed, and most able men of our State. The Executive 
officers, the Governor, Lieut. Governor, Secretary of State, 
Comptroller, Attorney General and Treasurer, are and for 
more than thirty years have been, by virtue of their respec- 
tive offices, Trustees of Union College. Judicial officers 
of high rank, and other distinguished citizens, have been 
Trustees. If the charges now brought forward are sus- 
tained, it is impossible to screen any of these Trustees from 
the charge of the most gross and culpable inattention to 
their duties, and ignorance of the fiscal affairs of the Col- 
lege ; or a willful and wicked abandonment of its rights 
and interests to the cupidity of its President. The first al- 
ternative is disproved by the most abundant evidence, fur- 
nished by the books of minutes of the Trustees, which show 
numerous reports of most thorough and searching investi- 
gations into the pecuniary condition of the College, by such 
men as the late William James, a well known merchant 
of this city, the Hon. William L. Marcy, the Hon. Silas 
Wright and A. C.Flagg, former Comptrollers of the State, 
the Hon. John A Dix and the Hon. John P. Cushman, now 

1* 



deceased. Their reports show on their face the labor 
which preceded their preparation. Yet they all exhibit- 
ed a condition of the College, utterly incompatible with 
the alleged robberies and frauds, and they all speak in the 
highest terms of the ability, zeal and disinterestedness of 
the President and his entire devotion to the interests of the 
College. Besides these special reports, the minutes show 
that there was a standing financial Committee of the Trus- 
tees, to watch over the College funds, and an auditing 
committee appointed each year to examine the accounts of 
the Treasurer, and finally that the Treasurer annually sub- 
mitted to the Board, a summary of the fiscal affairs of the 
College during the year in detail. 

Ignorance of the true condition of the College, and inat- 
tention to their duties, can not then be imputed to the 
Trustees, and certainly not to the gentlemen who made the 
reports above mentioned. 

Before you will adopt the other incredible alternative, 
that these Trustees willfully aud wickedly abandoned the 
rights and interests of the College to the cupidity of its 
President, you will demand such clear, unequivocal evi- 
dence, as shall amount to demonstration ; such as you would 
require if you were yourselves subjected to such atrocious 
charges. 

There is another individual $ whose reputation is still 
more deeply involved in these charges. A venerable man 
who has passed his eightieth year, occupied for sixty years 
of that time, in the offices of a minister of the gospel, 
whose whole private life has never been tarnished, even by 
the suspicion of crime, whose exemplary conduct has won 
him the esteem, the veneration of his cotemporaries, who 
has for fifty years been engaged in the instruction of thou- 
sands of the youth of our country, in science, morals, and 
the principles of the christian religion, and around whom 
the warmest affections and the deepest sympathies of those 
youths, now become men, and many of them old men, in 
all the professions, departments and walks of life, gather 
and cluster as around a father ; this venerable man, whose 
early manhood and mature age, have been exclusively de- 



3 

voted to this college, is now arraigned on charges of fraud 
and robbery, and systematic plunder of the child of all 
his love and hopes. 

Gentlemen, it is monstrous ; it is against the whole 
course of nature ; it belies all our experience. And what 
degree of evidence will you, and every man who is not 
himself a rogue, and judges others by himself, what degree 10 
of evidence should be required to sustain such charges, 
under such circumstances ? 

And by whom are these charges brought forward ? No 
man that is, or ever was a trustee, or in any way connected 
with the college, instigated or abetted these charges, or the 
enquiries which led to this investigation. No man having 
any interest in the college, from his associations or his 
residence, stirs in the matter. But strangers, from remote 1 , 
parts of the State, or recently removed to this State, who 
never lifted a finger for the college, and never expressed 
the least interest in its welfare, have suddenly become its 
only friends and protectors against the alleged rapacity 
and guilty confederacy of its natural and official guardi- 
ans ; and have found a subordinate ready and anxious to 
help them in their chivalrous enterprise. Direct proof of 
secret motives is not to be expected. But before we finish 
our labors, sufficient will appear to cast a dark shade on 
the justice, honor, and good faith of the conspirators. 

Such are the prominent circumstances in which you en- 
ter upon this investigation. There are intrinsic and extrin- 
sic difficulties and obstacles in arriving at results, of un- 
common character. Most of the men who were engaged 
in the transactions which are now re-opened after a repose 
of thirty, forty and fifty years, sleep with their fathers ; of 13 
those that remain, the infirmities of age disqualify most of 
them from giving any explanations. Even my venerable 
client, whose reasoning faculties has been so wonderfully 
preserved, cannot be expected to possess a memory that 
could recall the circumstances which might relieve from 
obscurity many of these complicated transactions. 

And unfortunately the books and papers of the college, 14 



12 



15 



of the periods referred to, afford little light. Literary in- 
stitutions were never famous for strict book-keeping ; their 
officers have duties, and are engaged in pursuits of a dif- 
ferent character. The same test cannot be applied to them, 
as to the books of account of bankers and large mercantile 
concerns. And Union College seems to have been particu- 
larly unfortunate in this respect. The person who was 
treasurer for twenty- six years, after 1807, has himself fur- 
nished us good evidence in his books, that he was far from 
being a good accountant. During the latter years of his 
service, he was engaged at New- York as a partner with the 
contractors, and his interests were not those of the college. 
He left his books and papers in the hands of an incompe- 
tent clerk, and when he resigned, a committee of the trus- 
tees found great irregularities in his accounts, and a con 

* siderable balance against him from that cause. The pre- 
sent treasurer and acting treasurer, have testified that no 
vouchers or papers of the long period referred to, are to be 
found, after the most diligent inquiry. The treasurer who 
succeeded Mr. Yates is dead, and young men occupy the 
place. 

I have a right to ask, whether from such materials, any 
evidence can be expected of such a character as is demand- 

1? ed, to overcome the presumptions against the truth of 
these charges, stated in the commencement of these re- 
marks ? I trust that this question will be borne in mind 
during the discussion upon which I am about to enter. 

A history of the events that led to your appointment 
as a committee, will be found useful in our subsequent 
progress. 

In 1849, March 12, the Assembly adopted a resolution, 

18 requiring a full report of the condition of the college, to 
which a full answer was made April 5, 1849, purporting 
to be the result of an examination of the fiscal transactions 
of the college for the last twenty-five years. 

This report was, on the 11th of April, 1849, referred by 
the Assembly to its committee on colleges, academies and 
common schools, of which Mr. JBeekman, a member from 
New-York, was a member, with instructions to examine 

19 into the financial condition of Union College, with power 



20 



to send for persons and papers, and to report to the next 
Legislature. (See beginning of Assembly Document, No. 
190, 1850.) 

On the 19th of March, 1850, Mr. Beekman and three 
others of the committee made a report, concluding that 
" the financial condition of Union College is unsound and 
improper." 

The majority say that they met at Schenectady, on the 
15th of May last, (1849,) and held their meetings at the 
college. " Very full explanations of the financial trans- 
actions of the college, were made by the President and 
Treasurer, both being always present;" page 1 of report. 
This report contained very serious charges against the offi- 
cers of the college, particularly the President, which had 
never been specified to them, and of which no answers or 
explanations had been required. On the 23d of March, "* 
1850, Mr. Pruyn, one of the committee, made a minority 
report — Document No. 190. He says, p. 1, that on the 
meeting of the committee, " the President, immediately, 
placed at the disposal of the committee, a room in one of 
the college edifices, and devoted his whole time to facili- 
tate the investigation, and make it as thorough as possi- 
ble." " The President and Treasurer of the college were 
examined on oath." 

After a very elaborate examination of all the points 
made by the minority report, Mr. Pruyn, the chairman of 
the committee, and who had moved the resolution of en- 
quiry, entirely dissents from the conclusions of the ma- 
jority, and expresses his confidence in the soundness of the 
pecuniary condition of the college. 

On the 8th of April, 1850, the Treasurer of Union Col- 03 
lege made the annual report to the Legislature, and ap- 
pended to it, a reply to the report of the majority of the 
Assembly committee. 

This reply shows great inaccuracy in the statements of 
facts and the testimony by that majority. 

In conclusion, in behalf of the resident Trustees, he asks, 
that if his report be not satisfactory, a judicial proceeding 
may be directed, to investigate the misconduct charged by 24 



22 



the committee, " with all the advantages of a legal proce- 
dure, in which the parties are brought face to face." 

No action, however, was taken by the Assembly, although 
a motion was made, at the request of the officers oi the 
college, to refer the reports to a committee, which was 
negatived. The inference is strong, that the answer of 

25 the Treasurer was satisfactory. 

I call attention to the facts, that the committee was ap- 
pointed 11th April, 1849, that they assembled and made 
their investigations on the 15th of May, 1849 ; but that 
their report was withheld until the 19th of March, 1850, 
and that 21 days thereafter, the Legislature adjourned, viz . 
on the 10th day of April, 1850 ; and I submit whether there 
was not an intentional delay in making their report^ so as 

26 to prevent any answer to its fallacies and misstatements ; 
and whether the omission to direct any further proceed- 
ings, was not an acknowledgment that their accusations 
had been repelled ? Yet, the report of the majority of the 
committee was profusely scattered, not only in this State, 
but into adjoining States. 

On the 12th of April, 1851, the same Mr. Beekman,who 
had figured, as already stated 3 in the Assembly of 1849 

27 and 1850, being a member of the Senate from one of the 
New-York districts, and chairman of the Literature Com- 
mittee of that body, made a report on his own responsi- 
bility, on the financial condition of Union College, with- 
out any new examinations, and founded wholly on that 
which had been made the preceding year, by the majority 
of the Assembly committee, entirely ex parte, without 
giving any opportunity to the Trustees or officers of Union 

28 College to answer or explain. This miscalled report, was 
mainly a repetition of the charges in the report of the ma- 
jority of the Assembly committee in 1850, with some new 
variations to escape the conclusive replies which the Trea- 
surer had made. 

This report, also, was extensively circulated, through the 

instrumentality of Mr. Beekman and his friends, and a 

large number of copies were left at the office of a daily 

09 newspaper in Albany, for gratuitous distribution, through 



30 



the agency, and with the approbation of Mr. Beekman ; 
and the publisher of the paper, in coarse vituperative terms, 
invited people to call at his office for these copies. 

In this report, Mr. Beekman proposed that the Comp- 
troller, Attorney- General and John N. Campbell, a Regent 
of the University, should be appointed to employ an ac- 
countant, to send for persons and papers, to examine into 
the pecuniary affairs of Union College, and report upon the 
same to the next Legislature. (See Senate Journal of 1851, 
page 526.) This proposition, put in the form of a resolu- 
tion, was adopted without debate. Mr. Beekman, the ac- 
cuser, who had become committed by his reports to serious 
accusations, thus himself named the commissioners who 
were to investigate. 

The Legislature adjourned on the 17th of April, 1851. 
With all his materials before him for more than a year, 31 
Mr. Beekman thus waits until the close of the session to 
bring forth in another form his accusations, evidently for 
the purpose of precluding reply. The indefinite and un- 
limited scope of the enquiry u to examine into the pecu- 
niary affairs of Union College," was calculated to afford 
abundant opportunity for the indulgence of prejudice and 
animosity in the investigation of the transactions of half a 
century, with every person and on every subject, whether 32 
connected with the legislative grants or not. 

And I will not refrain from remarks on the complexion 
of the commission named by the accuser, without any op- 
portunity being afforded to the parties accused to state any 
exceptions they might have against the persons named, 
and to endeavor to procure an impartial tribunal. 

The two executive officers of the State, the mostburthen- 
ed with official duties, and the least likely to be able to 33 
devote any time to the subject, were selected to conduct an 
enquiry of such great magnitude and complexity, and em- 
bracing a period of fifty-five years. To them was added, 
a clergyman, named in the resolution, " a Regent of the 
University," as if that were the reason for selecting him 
out of twenty- three gentlemen, most of them accountants 
and men of business. Probably the least competent mem- 
ber of the Board of Regents was thus selected by Mr. 34 



36 



JBeekman. Whether the motive for this selection is to be 
found in the notorious fact that an unfriendly state of feel- 
ing towards Dr. Nott, amounting to animosity, had long 
existed and continued to exist in the mind of the individual 
selected, must be left for the judgment of those who shall 
become acquainted with the subsequent history of this in- 
_ vestigation. 

Fortunately, an extra session of the Legislature of 1851 
was held, commencing in June of that year. The oppor- 
tunity was used by some senators to correct to some extent 
the former proceeding. Two additional members, David 
Buel and Philip S. Van Rensselaer, two other Regents of 
the University, were added to the commission, and a reso- 
lution was passed by the Senate, denning the purposes and 
objects of enquiry, and restraining the commissioners within 
the range of legislative authority; and the commission 
were directed " themselves, or a majority of them, person- 
ally to visit the college and re-examine the proceedings 
heretofore had in relation thereto " (Senate Journal, 28th 
June, 1851). On the 27th of May, 1851, the commission 
appointed Mr. Levinus Vanderheyden accountant, and on 
the 14th of October they appointed Mr. Philip Ford his 
assistant, with an allowance to the former of $150 per 
month, and to the latter of $75 per month. (See report 
of commission: Document No. 40, Senate documents of 
1852.) 

On the 27th of February, 1852 (Sen. Doc. No. 40.), the 
commission made a report pursuant to two resolutions of 
the Senate, of June 21st and June 23d. 

This resolution of June 23d, was calculated to bring out 

3g a mutilated and partial report of particular transactions 
which, unexplained, would appear unfavorable to Dr. 
Nott and the college ; and although the commission say 
in their report in answer to it, that the examination had 
extended only to the year 1820, from the year 1795, yet 
they obligingly comply with the resolution, and make a 
report which embraces transactions down to 1849, and 
presents statements quite diiferent from those subse- 

39 quently reported by them, and prepared by the same ac- 



37 



40 



41 



eountant. This report was wholly exparte, no opportunity 
having been given to controvert or explain the transactions, 
and being made even without the knowledge of the officers 
of the college. Its main object seems to have been to preju- 
dice Dr. Nott, by representing him as having borrowed and 
used the funds of the college to the amount of $560,000. 

Before we finish the investigation, you will have learned 
to your entire satisfaction, that Dr. Nott was not a borrow- 
er of the funds of the college for his own use, or for his 
private benefit ; that the only loans made to him were of 
moneys laid out in purchases of property for the col- 
lege, and for improvements of its real estate and buildings, 
and that the other advances were made for the purpose of 
saving to the college the utmost amount of interest on the 
money paid to the treasurer. He was in the habit of with- 
drawing such moneys with the sanction of the finance com- 
mittee, temporarily upon his own notes or obligations on 
interest, until he could safely invest them permanently, 
and then substituting the securities which he had received 
for his own. And in addition to his personal responsi- 
bility and the collateral securities he temporarily left with 
the treasurer, there was always on deposit with the trea- 
surer, private and individual funds belonging to him, far 
exceeding the amounts thus temporarily withdrawn. Yet 
these transactions, most of which carry on their face evi- 
dence of their being of the character described, were thus 
promulgated as personal loans for speculative purposes ; 
and an impression was produced that Dr. Nott had wan- 
tonly violated all the duties of his station, and jeoparded 
the very existence of the college by such an illegal and 
wicked perversion of its funds. And this report too, was 
circulated with great activity throughout the country, by 
Mr. Beekman and his friends. 

Previous to the making of this last report, a committee 
of the Trustees of Union College, consisting of R. H. Wal- 
worth, R. M. Blatchford, A. Hunt and B. R. Wood, had, 
on the 23d of July, 1851, addressed a respectful letter to 
the members of the commission, requesting the appoint- 
ment of a time and place for the investigation, that they 44 

2* 



42 



43 



10 

might attend it in behalf of the college, for which purpose 
they had been appointed. Without notice to them, or to 
any Trustee or officer of the college, the calumnious re- 
port above mentioned was prepared by the accountant, and 
transmitted by Mr. Campbell, in behalf of the commission, 
to the Senate. 

Our history now brings us to the report of the majority 

46 of the commission, made March 5, 1853, containing the 
voluminous statements of the accountant referred to you. 
These statements were never submitted for examination to 
the treasurer or any officer of the college, nor was an op- 
portunity ever given to them or to the Trustees to examine 
them. Such an opportunity had been respectfully request- 
ed by a portion of the Trustees who were resident in and 
"about Albany, who addressed a letter to each of the com- 

47 missioners, previous to the meeting of the board, to receive 
and consider the statements of the accountant, " soliciting 
an opportunity of being heard by the board, in explana- 
tion of the said statements, and to correct them if necessa- 
ry before they should be acted upon by them and sent to 
the Senate." (See Memorial of Trustees, March 12, 
1853.) 

Mr. John N. Campbell, the chairman of the Board assured 

48 the President of the College and another Trustee that "when 
the accountant was through with the bjoks,the commission- 
ers would visit the College and make the requisite personal 
enquiries, and give the Trustees an opportunity of meeting 
the charges made against them, and of explaining the dif- 
ficulties which might arise," and that the proposed answer 
of the Trustees should be presented with the report of the 
Commission, to the Senate. Similar communications 

49 were made to other members- of the Commissioners, and 
similar assurances were made by them to different Trustees. 
(The memorial of Dr. Nott, March 14, 1853, and statement 
of the Rev. Dr. Van Vechten, Doc. XXIII.) The manner in 
which these engagements were fulfilled, will be shown by an 
extract from the report of Messrs Buel and Van Rensselaer, 
of March 3, 1853. After stating the application of the trus- 
tees of the college for a hearing, these gentlemen say : " the 

50 undersigned were desirous of affording them such an oppor- 



51 



52 



11 

tunity, but the two members of the commission above refer- 
ed to (J. N. Campbell and J. C. Wright) refused to afford 
such an opportunity, and insisted on transmitting to your 
honorable body the statements and schedules, proposed by 
the accountant." The accountant Vanderheyden, also 
promised repeatedly that he would visit the College and 
submit to the President for examination, his schedules, be- 
fore they were submitted to the Commissioners for their 
action thereon. (Memorial of Trustees, March 12, 1853 and 
of Dr. Nott, March 14, 1853, and testimony of Gen. George 
R. Davis, (Doc. XLIV.) Have I not a right to say, that there 
could be no motive or reason for such a gross violation of com- 
mon justice and of solemn engagements sufficient to overcome 
all sense of propriety, other than the apprehension that an 
impartial and thorough investigation would overthrow fore- 
gone conclusions, and add immeasurably to the difficulties 
of presenting to the Senate, the materials that had been 
collected 1 

The value of the report as authority for any thing it con- 
tains, may be determined by the following considerations. 
Two of the Commission, Messrs Buel and Van Rensselaer, 
say in their report, "these statements and schedules are quite 
voluminous, and the undersigned have had no sufficient 
opportunity to examine them, and form any opinion of the 
principle on which they have been made out, or the data 
on which they are founded ; nor was there any explanation 
of those principles and data given to the commission" Mr. 
Wright, the Comptroller, from the multiplicity of his of- 
ficial labors, could not possibly have devoted the necessary 
time to examine, comprehend and compare these volumi- 
nous statements of 190 printed pages, and it is understood 
that he has repeatedly declared that he never did examine 
them, but signed the report in full faith in the intelligence 
and integrity of the accountant. 

Mr. J, N. Campbell, from his profession and pursuits is, 
notoriously incapable of such an investigation, and it is 
understood that he also has declared that he knew nothing 
about these statements, but took them on the word or oath 
of the accountant. 

The Attorney General, Mr. Chatfield, has given a very 55 



53 



12 

cautious certificate, and simply " concurs in the above re- 
port." In fact, as I am informed, Mr. Vanderheyden, the 
accountant, repaired to New- York city, where the Attor- 
ney General was officially employed, with the balance 
sheets, schedule No. 2 and statement No. 1, at pages 8,&c, 
and 81, &c, of the majority report, and awaking Mr. Chat- 

56 field from his slumbers at or after midnight, showed these 
two statements to him, that he spent perhaps fifteen min- 
utes in looking at them, and then wrote and signed the 
cautious concurrence which appears in the report. 

There is quite strong evidence on the face of the state- 
ments, that the three commissioners who transmitted them 
to the Senate never read them. At page 133 of the report, 
after giving his views of the transactions respecting the 

57 Hunter farm and the Stuyvesant Cove property, the ac- 
countant remarks : " The accountant respectfully submits 
to the commission the propriety of making the proper 
charge for both these parcels of land, with the accruing 
interest, to the account of Eliphalet Nott." As all his 
charges to the account of Dr. Nott were subject to the ap- 
probation of the commission, this particular designation 
indicates his own doubts of the correctness of these items, 

gg and he therefore specially invokes the judgment of the 
commissioners respecting them. The majority of the com- 
missioners, in their preliminary abstract of the results of 
the accountant's statements, set down, at p. 2, the Presi- 
dent's indebtedness for the Hunter and Stuyvesant pro- 
perty, $184,256 06 

Interest, 184,770 13 

The accountant however states at p. 133, the principal of 

59 the Hunter farm at, $100,000 00 

And of the Stuyvesant Cove property at, ... . 58,632 15 

Making, $158,632 15 

Instead of the $184,256.06 of the commissioners. 

The accountant, also, at p. 133, states the interest on the 

Hunter farm at, $99,555 54 

And on the Stuyvesant property, 57,847 12 

60 Making, $157,402 Q6 

Instead of the $184,770.13 of the commissioners. 



13 

But if it be supposed the commissioners intended to in- 
clude in the interest the incidental charges on the Hun- 
ter farm at p. 134, amounting to, $8,657 91 

And the payments on the Stuyvesant proper- 
ty at p. 135 to 138, amounting to, 52,991 39 



61 



62 



63 



Making, $61,649 30 

Adding the above interest, 1 57,402 66 

Makes, $219,051 96 

Which is still more wide of the mark. 

Nor will the total of the sums given by the commission- 
ers agree with the total of the accountant's items. 
The total of their two items of principal and interest 

is, $369,026 19 

The total of the accountant's, exclusive of the 

incidental charges, is, 296,034 81 

Including those charges it is, .... . 377,684 1 1 

So that in no way do they agree. 

A similar instance is furnished at p. 188, where the ac- 
countant submits to the decision of the commission, the 
propriety of crediting Dr. Nott with $29,430.92, a supposed 
balance ot the $150,000 bond. 

No opinion appears any where, to have been expressed 
on this question by the commissioners. 

All sanction or authority for the accuracy of the state- 
ments and accounts in the report, must therefore be derived 
from the accountant alone. The value of this authority 
may be determined from the following considerations : 

1. He was appointed an accountant , an office which, by 
the name, implies the duty only of examining existing 64 
items of account, reducing them to form, and stating the 
result. And so the commissioners regarded the duty, for 
they say his statement is believed by them " to be a true 
and full exhibit of the pecuniary condition of that institu- 
tion, as presented by said books and vouchers, as authen- 
ticated annually by the treasurer thereof." (p. 1 Report.) 

Now, it has appeared to the committee, and is avowed 
by the accountant in his testimony, that he has wholly dis- 
regarded the books of the college on the most important 



65 



66 



67 



68 



69 



70 



14 

question involved in the investigation, namely, the amounts 
received from lotteries ; has derived them from the plead- 
ings in a suit in chancery between Yates & Mclntyre and 
the Trustees of the college ; and that he has in other in- 
stances wholly set aside the entries in the college books, 
and has resorted to the private books of its adversaries in 
litigation, for amounts paid the treasurer, of which the 
books furnish no evidence. And he declares, in his testi- 
mony, that he acted as " vice chancellor," as he terms it ; 
of which there is abundant proof in numerous instances 
where he has made arbitrary charges upon his own crude 
and ridiculous notions of equity, and has set aside the most 
formal acts, settlements and agreements of the Trustees, 
made with the President and other parties. In all this, 
he has palpably violated his duty, and in doing so, has 
evinced a determination to sustain a foregone conclusion 
at all hazards. 

2. During his examination before you, he has performed 
in the alternate characters of accountant, counsel and 
prosecutor, and witness ; so that it was often difficult to de- 
termine in which he was speaking. In all these characters 
he has evinced an intemperate zeal, a tenacity to his own 
statements, which have resisted all criticism on them 
and all scrutiny of his accounts as a personal indignity. 
Instead of being solicitous for the development of pure 
and simple truth, he has aimed only to maintain his own 
infallibility. 

3. After his duties as accountant were at an end, by his 
final report, and its transmission to the Senate, he volun- 
teered to transmit to that body, his own affidavit and the 
statements and affidavits of others upon collateral subjects, 
and not sustaining a single item in his account, but calcu- 
lated and intended to asperse Dr. Nott and represent him 
as a swindler ; every one of which aspersions has been tri- 
umphantly refuted before you, as will be shown in the 
course of this argument. These papers were never sub- 
mitted to the Commission, never passed upon by them, and 
of course formed no part of their report. Yet, by the co- 
operation of his co-adjutor, Mr. James W. Beekman, they 



71 



15 

were ordered to be printed, without any opportunity to 
meet and contradict their calumnious contents, and they 
were made the theme ot declamation by Mr. Beekman in 
the Senate for days, as if they had been recorded verdicts 
of impartial juries. The Senate was made instrumental 
in their publication, and they were actually ordered to be 
attached to the official report of the Commissioners. Is it 
not evident that these affidavits and statements thus fur- 
nished, were prepared in pursuance of a settled plan, to 
give an opportunity for a Senator to abuse the privilege 
of his station, by stabbing in the back a man whom he 
wished to destroy ? And the accountant thus became a 
party or a tool in the accomplishment of this unworthy de- 
sign. 

While there was pending in the Senate, a proposition to 
give the accused Trustees and President of Union College, ^ 
one opportunity to meet the atrocious eharges against 
them, by the appointment of an impartial Committee, this 
same accountant, with the view of defeating that proposi- 
tion, made the voluntary communication of affidavits and 
statements above mentioned ; and also published in two 
daily papers of the city of Albany, a wanton, scurrilous 
attack and libel upon Dr. Nott, rehashing some of the 
most venomous and unwarrantable charges in his accounts, "* 
and adding one of a diabolical character, imputing to Dr. 
Nott a deliberate and persevering attempt for many hours 
to induce him, Mr. Vanderheyden to commit a direct and 
palpable forgery of the books of Union College. That his 
charge has been proved by himself to be atrociously 
false, only aggravates the malevolence with which it was 
made. (See Doc. XLIV.) 

His conduct before you has exhibited, especially when 
put ofi* his guard by his passions, the most spiteful malig- 
nity against Dr. Nott. He has sought occasions, not re- 
quired in defence of his accounts, to malign and insult him 
in the most offensive terms, and has scarcely been restrained 
by intimations that it would not be permitted with impu- 
nity. He has taken every opportunity and made oppor- 



74 



16 

75 tunities, to insinuate and make charges of personal miscon- 
duct in matters with which he had no concern. 
1 The conduct described under the three last heads, proves 

this man to be a most dangerous and unreliable witness in 
any matter affecting Dr. Nott. 

4. He jbas. stated the accounts of the college in a manner 
utterly unintelligible, the result either of incapacity or of 

> the difficulty of making error consistent. I appeal to the 

\ ?*} recollection of every member of the committee for corrobo- 
ration of the remarks, that it has required the most tedious 
>» (and protracted examination of the accountant to compre- 
hend the reason of his charges and credits, and his man- 
ner of 'stating them ; and that he has entered important 
items which were the results of complicated deductions 
and offsets, of which no trace is furnished by his accounts 
or his tables, so that if he were not present to explain 
^ them, no mortal could comprehend them; indeed, this 
very remark w r as made to him by one or two of the com- 
mittee during the investigation. 

5. He has, himself, stultified his own account, for after 
spending eighteen months in making it up, he insists, at 
this late day, that he has committed errors to the amount 
of $65,000, which he says he omitted to charge against 
Dr. Nott. He seems to be wholly indifferent to or incapa- 

7 ^ ble of perceiving the utter derangement of all his balances 
by such additions ; and that if true, they exhibit debts due 
to the college without any corresponding means on which 
they could be founded. Besides those omitted charges 
which he now claims to make, he, as counsel has admitted, 
that there are charges against Dr. Nott which are errone- 
ous to a considerable amount. He has been convicted, by 
proof before yon, of making charges directly in the face 
of facts recorded in his own report and in the minutes and 
books of the college. I allude to his charge against A. 
Holland, for dividends on Mohawk bank stock, which he 
claimed to belong to the college, when his own statement 
showed that it belonged to Mr. Freeman, to whom Mr. 
Holland had paid it, and for similar payments to Dr. Nott, 
when tke books of the college showed the stock had been 



79 



82 



17 

transferred to him ; and I particularly allude to his charge 
of $-100 against Dr. A. Potter, when the very resolution of 80 
the trustees to which he referred, showed that it was a re- 
payment for money advanced in the purchase of books. 
There are other undeniable errors, but these are selected 
because he seemed to admit their inaccuracy. 

And yet, he had the rashness, to use the most moderate 
phrase, at the very end of the investigation, to volunteer 
a statement on his oath as a witness, that the accounts and 
statements in his printed report, excepting the new claims 
he set up against Dr Nott, were accurate a:;d true ! 

Gentlemen, can this man be relied on for fairness and 
truth ? 

You might indeed give him full credence where his 
statements are sustained and corroborated by the books of 
the college, as remarked by the chairman of the commit- 
tee. But in that case, you believe the books, not him. 
He cannot be sustained by the books of the college in these 
accounts, because he avows himself that he has repudiated 
those books, and sought information elsewhere, and on that 
information has made charges. But besides, he has in 
many instances stated large amounts, embracing incalcula- 
bly numerous items which are not given, and the accu- 
racy of which amounts it is impossible to test by the books 
without a year's labor. Instances are found, of enor- 
mous amounts of interest received on various accounts for 
the last twenty-five years, amounting to $303,661.38; in- 
terest paid amounting to $232,500 ; tuition or term bills 
amounting to $335,041.50; salaries, regular and extra, 
paid to the president and professors, $526,275.26, besides 
many others of less amount. In respect to these you have 
no evidence but his own assertion. It is impossible either 
to sustain or contradict him. His credibility then, becomes 
a point of the last importance in determining on the re- 
sults he has stated. 

6. As to his capacity and skill as an accountant. I deny 
that there is any such difficulty or mystery in the science 
of book-keeping as he pretends. An entry in an account 

is a verdict upon facts, or a judgment upon the law and 

3* 



83 



84 



85 



86 



18 

the facts. Common sense, an impartial mind, and a 
knowledge of sound legal principles, when they are in- 
volved in the case, will enable a man to state truly and 
intelligently any account and its results. A drudging 
patience and labor, which characterize an ox, are not the 
only qualifications for an accountant. The mere man of 
figures, may correctly sum up and arrange admitted items. 
But when the items are disputed, when the question is 
whether they are chargeable at all, or to any particular 
person or party, it passes beyond the domain of the ac- 
countant and becomes matter for judicial decision. The 
utter incompetency of Mr. Vanderheyden for such an office 
has been most apparent throughout the whole of this in- 
vestigation. 

I do not claim that his character for truth as a man or 

for integrity as an accountant has been impeached by the 

testimony. On the contrary, I cheerfully concede that the 

Q „ preponderance of evidence on that subject is decidedly in 

his fat or. 

But I do claim what your own observation must have 
established in your minds, that he is a man of violent feel- 
ings and prejudices, without sufficient moral or intellectual 
force to restrain them : that he is therefore an unsafe wit- 
ness in any case. And further, that the existence of such 
feelings and prejudices against Dr. Nott has been abundantly 
g 8 shown, and that they have been manifested in the modes 
already described, especially in the admitted falsity of his 
publications, and in his final, unasked and reckless oath 
to the entire accuracy of his accounts. 

I now propose to pursue the investigation in the order 
indicated by the resolution for your appointment, and to 
furnish answers to each of the objects of enquiry therein 
specified, 
go The resolution for your appointment directs that the re- 
port of the majority and of the minority of the commis- 
sion be referred to you " to investigate the matters specified 
in the Senate resolutions of June and July, 1851," and to 
report " the results of their enquiries, and their opinions 
thereon." 



19 

The following are the resolutions of June and July, 
1851: 

" Resolved, That the commission appointed by the Senate ^ 
on the 12th of April, 1851, to employ a skillful accountant 
to examine the pecuniary affairs of Union College, and to 
report upon the same, be instructed, themselves, or a ma- 
jority of them, personally to visit the College, and re-ex- 
amine the proceedings heretofore had in relation thereto^ 
and to investigate and to report to the next Legislature 
upon the following subjects connected with said College : 

1 . Whether the funds granted by the State to Union Col- gj 
lege have been duly applied to the objects specified in the 
respective grants ; 

2. Whether the permanent funds so granted remain en- 
tire, and are safely invested ; 

3. Whether any funds belonging to the College have 
been applied to any personal purpose by the president, or 
any other officer or person • 

4. Whether any and what losses have occurred in the 92 
management of the College, and the causes of such losses ; 

5. Whether the president or any other officer has, while 
in the employment of the College, participated individually 
in the profits of any lotteries which were appropriated by 
the acts granting such lotteries to Union College ; and that 
the commission appointed by the resolution referred to, or 
a majority of them, be empowered to employ some person 
authorised by law to administer an oath to persons ex- 93 
amined by such commission." 

The first inquiry is, whether the funds granted by the 
State to Union College have been duly applied to the ob- 
jects specified in the respective grants ? 

It will be observed that this inquiry relates exclusively 
to the grants made by the State. 

A full and accurate statement of these grants is contain- 
ed in a book herewith presented, called Fund Book. The 94 
several amounts may be compared with the different acts 
of the Legislature making the grants, which are printed in 
the appendix to the report of the accountant, p. 191 to 



20 

200. An account is opened with each one of those grants, 
and with each object of the several grants. 

Under the act making the grant will be found a refer- 
ence to the account, with the object, where the amount of 

95 the grant will be found properly charged to the college, 
and accounted for. Each of these will be found clear, 
distinct, and unquestionable ; and no special remark is ne- 
cessary in relation to them, except, perhaps, the account 
under the act of 1814, granting $200,000 and six years in- 
terest. 

At folio 77 will be found an account of the interest re- 
ceived, and the place in the ledger where it is credited in 

96 the general account of the college, and accounted for by 
the general expenses. 

In the middle of the page, fol. 8, each sum is accounted 
tor by reference to the account, with the object to which it 
was appropriated ; and by recurring to that account it will 
be found credited there, and accounted for ; and the com- 
mittee will see that not only every dollar granted by the 
State has been applied to the objects specified in the re- 
spective grants, but that in most instances the monies now 
appropriated to these objects exceed the grants. 

The second inquiry is, whether the permanent funds so 
granted remain entire and are safely invested 1 

The permanent funds referred to, are those which were 
directed to be invested, yielding income which was to be 
applied to the specified object. 

These permanent funds are the following : 

1. That for the aid of indigent students. 
Pages 23, 24, of the Fund book, show that the whole 

sum, $50,000, appropriated for that object, is invested in 
bonds and mortgages, except $5.89. 

Pages 30, 31, show that the income of this fund has been 
applied to the object, and an excess of $16,523.93. 

2. That for the support of the President and Professors. 
The principal of this fund is $78,483.93 
The accounts at pp. 35, 36, 37, show investments to 

the amount of $78,705.78. 

The application of the income is shown at pp. 38, 39, 



97 



101 



21 

and which exhibit an excess of expenditures on 1st Janu- 
ary, 1849, of 1292,432.30. 

It appears from the accounts presented to you, that the 
income received from the fund appropriated for the sup- 
port of the President and Professors, $1 93,966 72 

From tuition, 335,041 50 

And from the income for indigent students, 108,505 61 100 

Amount to, $637,513 83 

"While the expenditures for the President and Professors, 
and for indigent students, was $652,425.69; showing an 
excess of expenditures $14,911.86. 

With regard to the second branch of this inquiry, 
whether these permanent funds are safely invested 1 

1. That for the aid of indigent students is proved to be 
perfectly safe in undoubted bonds and mortgages. 

2. That for the support of the President and professors, 
is also shown by the testimony to be safely invested in 
bonds and mortgages of undoubted security and in sound 
stocks. 

The third inquiry is, whether any funds belonging to 
the college have been applied to any personal purpose by - ~ 
the President, or any other officer or person ? 

Of course, the funds have been applied to the payment 
of salaries of the President and officers, and their official 
expenses ; and they have been invested, to some extent, in 
loans to officers of the college, and to others. 

It cannot be supposed that the inquiry relates to these. 
It is supposed to mean, whether any funds have been di- 
verted from their legitimate purposes, and improperly ap- *qq 
plied to mere personal purposes — to the private benefit of 
the President or other officer or person, in fraud, and to 
the injury of the college. 

Of course, the President and officers of the college stand 
upon the defensive, and can have nothing to say, except to 
make a general and emphatic denial, until some misappli- 
cation of the kind is pointed out. 

The zeal of the accountant has presented two instances, iq± 
which he claims are of this character, the use of the two 



22 

and a quarter per cent fund, for supervision and manage- 
ment of the lotteries, sometimes called the President's 
fund, and the use of twenty-two notes given on settlement 
by Yates & Mclntyre. These will be examined hereafter 
in their proper order. 

So far as respects the pecuniary interest of the College 

jq5 the discussion of the validity of the claims thus set up, is 
quite immaterial. The funds which are the subject of 
those claims, are already devoted to the College, an instru- 
ment to that effect, and his will confirming the same, drawn 
under the best legal advice, have been executed by the 
President, and deposited with the Treasurer. (See Hol- 
land's testimony in doc. XXXIV, folio 250.) The execution 
of the instrument was delaj^ed until the laws should be 

i ng passed, which the President was advised were necessary 
to render the proposed trusts, legal and valid. (Doc. 
XXXIV, folios 245, 248.) 

To understand fully, and particularly the questions now 
to be discussed, it becomes absolutely necessary to give a 
history of the College and of Dr. Nott's connexion with it, 
and his exertions for its benefit ; of the laws passed for its 
relief, of the proceedings under those laws, and of theagree- 

207 ments and stipulations entered into at different times, the 
settlements made with Yates and Mclntyre and with their 
representatives, and between the College and the Presi- 
dent. 

The want of such a connected history has doubtless 
caused the difficulty that has been felt in comprehending 
transactions of a diversified and complicated character, 
occurring during a term of more that half a century. 

103 A number of gentlemen in the then county of Albany, 
associated together in 1795, for the purpose of establish- 
ing a college, and having procured subscriptions for its 
endowment to the amount of thirty thousand dollars only, 
obtained a charter from the Regents of the University in- 
corporating Union College, and establishing it at Schenec- 
tady, which bears date July 7, 1795. 
The Rev. John B. Smith, w T as chosen the first President 

109 in 1795, when he repaired to Schenectady, and opened the 



23 

college to a few students, who recited in the old academy. 
From the papers that are left, particularly the remnants 
of accounts, it is evident that the college made very little 
progress, and was much embarrassed. Dr. Smith resigned 
in 1799, in consequence, it is understood, of the failure of 
all his expectations. Dr. Jonathan Edwards was chosen 
President in April, 1799, and died in office in 1801. In hq 
September, of that year, Dr. Jonathan Maxcy was elected 
President, and having struggled against the embarrass- 
ments of the college, arising from its want of pecuniary 
means, resigned in 1804. 

The condition of the college now seemed desperate. 
An edifice to accommodate the students had been com- 
menced, but its progress was suspended by the utter want 
of means to advance in its erection. There were about m 
thirty students lodged in the city of Schenectady, among 
its inhabitants, occupying such rooms as could be found, 
and reciting in the academy building. Nine years had 
elapsed without any perceptible improvement in the con- 
dition or prospects of the college ; on the contrary, its pe- 
cuniary resources had been expended ; it possessed no 
means, except an edifice partly completed, and a few books. 
Of the pecuniary appropriations by the Legislature, there 112 
remained nothing. 

In this emergency, the attention of the trustees was di- 
rected to the Rev. Eliphalet Nott, then occupyiog the po- 
sition of pastor, of the First Presbyterian church in the 
city of Albany. His activity and devotion to the duties 
of his station, had collected a congregation altogether the 
largest in the city, and which could scarcely find accom- 
modations within one of its capacious churches. The fame 113 
of his talents, particularly of his surpassing eloquence, had 
overspread the land. He seemed to be the man destined 
by Providence, to build up a seminary of learning of the 
highest grade, in the northern part of the State, which was 
entirely destitute of any such institution, there being but 
one college then in the whole State, at its most remote 
eastern and southern extremity, namely, Columbia college 
in the city of New- York. U4 



116 



When the Presidency of Union College was tendered to 
Mr. Nott, in July, 1804, he was occupied in a sphere of 
duty for which his great success had shown his peculiar 
fitness. Beloved, not to say adored by a congregation com- 
posed of the most intellectual, as well as the most refined 
and respectable men in the State, exercising an unbounded 
influence in the promotion of religious and charitable ob- 
115 jects, with a salary beyond his moderate wants, happy in 
his family, happy in his associates, and surrounded by 
everything to gratify his taste or his ambition, if he pos- 
sessed any, no position could be more enviable. The call 
to abandon this position of usefulness and happiness, and 
to undertake a task in which so many able and accom- 
plished men had been baffled, to encounter certain poverty, 
at least for a while, to create the materials for a colleg e 
out of absolutely nothing, to court expense, difficulty 
toil and labor, was a severe trial of the christian princi- 
ples which he professed. But he thought he beheld a path 
of duty evidently indicated to him, and he made the sa- 
crifice of his position. He accepted the offer, relinquished 
a station around which all his affections clustered, and 
entered at once upon the perilous undertaking. 

This event, with its attending circumstances, has been 

117 thus fully stated, because it furnishes the key to all the 
movements of his subsequent life. It was a sacrifice — a 
mighty sacrifice of present enjoyment and a future of hope 
and happiness to the cause of education, at a time and in 
a region of country when the demands of that cause were 
most vehement and importunate. As his devotion to it 
began in sacrifice, so the history of Union College will 
show that it was constantly accompanied by continued 

118 sacrifice of time, labor, and even exposure to obloquy, and 
by a noble disinterestedness which consecrated all the 
fruits of industry the most untiring, of a profound and 
far-reaching sagacity, and of a wonderful capacity to make 
everything available, to a cause which he well knew to be 
essential to the formation of the character of the rising 
generation. 

One of his first efforts was to obtain a legislative endow- 
1119 ment of the college. The State treasury was quite low, the 



25 

value of public lands had not been developed, and without 
some extraneous resource, no endowment could be granted. 
Lotteries had in Europe and our own sister States, been 
used to raise money for public, benevolent, and educational 
purposes. Their evils had not been experienced, and the 
morality of the age was not shocked by their being author- 
ized. Academies, churches, colleges, hospitals, had been j20 
endowed by their means. It was quite certain they would 
be granted for some purposes, for such was the fashion of 
the day, and no resistance of a moral character could have 
prevented them. It was better to turn them into a chan- 
nel where their beneficial results would to some extent 
compensate for their evil consequences. Accordingly a 
lottery was granted, although not solicited by the college, 
which asked for money. By an act passed March 30, 1805, j21 
(Chap. 62 of Session Laws of that year) four lotteries were 
authorised to be drawn, to produce eighty thousand dol- 
lars, of which thirty-five thousand dollars was to be ap- 
plied to the erection of additional edifices. 

The necessity of a building for the accommodation of 
students was most pressing and urgent. Indeed, without 
it, there could be no control of the conduct of the pupil? 
and the college was likely to become more a nursery of 122 
vice than of virtue. In full reliance upon the avails of 
these lotteries, and in the exigency of the case, the Trus- 
tees made loans of money to complete the edifice already 
commenced, to organize a corps of professors, and to com- 
mence a classical library for the use of students in indigent 
circumstances. Indeed, so strong was the conviction of 
the Legislature of the necessity for prompt relief, that by 
an act passed April 7, 1806, (Chap. 176, § 21) the Comp- 123 
troller was directed to borrow $15,000 on the credit of the 
State, and loan it to Union College, to be repaid out of the 
avails of the lottery authorized the previous year. But 
unfortunately the drawing of the four lotteries was not 
completed until the year 1814. In consequence of this 
great delay, the interest had accumulated on the loans so 
much, that after paying the principal and interest on them, 

the net avails of the lotteries amounted to only $76,138.01 124 

4* 



126 



26 

(See Report of Wm. James and Silas Wright, July 26, 1831, 
Doc. XXL) This sum was applied according to the di- 
rections of the Legislature in the grant. 

The Trustees and the President of the college struggled 
with these inadequate means, and although the number,, of 
pupils constantly augmented, yet this very increase caused 
9 - additional expenses. Another application to the favor of 
the Legislature therefore became necessary, and the Presi- 
dent, Dr Nott, was again obliged to put forth all his en- 
ergies, and to invoke a further endowment. 

The condition of the Treasury was, if possible, worse than 
before. A foreign war had imposed heavy burdens on the 
State, and another lottery was considered by the Legisla- 
ture as affording the only means of relief. The college 
was then indebted $35,000. Accordingly, by an act passed 
April 13, 1814, Chap. 120, lotteries were authorized to raise 
the following sums, which, by the act, were granted as fol- 
lows : 

To Union College, two hundred thousand dollars. 

To Hamilton College, forty thousand dollars. 

To the Asbury African Church in New- York, four thou- 
sand dollars. 

To the College of Physicians and Surgeons, thirty thou- 

127 san d dollars; with simple interest on these sums tor not 
more than six years after the passing of the act. 

At the end of the act, in the Session Laws of that year, 
the following note is published : 

u Note. — No bill before the Legislature excited greater 
interest and attention than this act. Much credit is due 
to the unwearied exertions of the able and eloquent Presi- 
dent of Union College in promoting its passage." 

128 By the 51st section of chap. 200 of the laws of the same 
session, (1814) the managers of the lotteries, authorised by 
the former act, were directed, after the payment of the sums 
granted by it, to raise the additional sum of twelve thou- 
sand dollars, to be paid to the Historical Society in the 
city of New-York, but it contained no provision for the 
payment of interest. 

The managers of these lotteries, appointed under the act, 

129 were remiss in their duties, and heavy losses were sus- 



27 

tained in the sale of tickets. As their compensation was 
fixed and certain, their interest would be promoted by de- 
lay and procrastination rather than by diligence and ex- 
pedition. 

'Nothing was realised from 1814 to 1822, to pay a dollar 
of the principal [sums granted, and not even sufficient to 
satisfy the interest. j3q 

Another vigorous effort became necessary to retrieve the 
errors of the past, and to render the Legislative grants of 
some avail. Again, the President of Union College put 
his shoulder to the wheel, and on the 5th of April, 1822, 
an act was passed (chapter 163,) entitled "An act to limit 
the continuance of lotteries," (Doc. II.) The preamble of 
this act recites that the institutions to which grants were 
made in the lottery, authorised by the act of 1814, u have -^31 
already suffered materially by delay in drawing the same, " 
as a motive for the passage of the act. It authorised those 
institutions conjointly to assume, or to appoint one of 
their number to assume, the entire direction and supervi- 
sion of the lottery, to appoint and remove the managers 
to make such contracts in relation to the same as they should 
deem proper, to direct the time and manner of drawing, 
and to recieve the avails and hazard the losses, and be re- 1 30 
sponsible for the payment of the prizes. By section six, 
the avails of the lottery, after deducting the expense of 
managing the some, were to be paid to the institutions in- 
terested in the original grant, until those grants were satis- 
fied; and by section seven, the grant of $12,000 to the 
Historical Society, was also to be paid. 

The conditions in this act, by which the State was to be 
absolved from all responsibility, and the whole hazard 
was to be assumed by the institutions interested, natu- 
rally excited alarm and apprehension among the officers of 
those institutions who had witnessed the losses and utter 
failure of the proceedings of tho managers for the prece- 
ding eight years. Hamilton College, the Asbury African 
church, and the Uollege of Physicians and Surgeons, the 
original grantees with Union College could not be induced 

to assume or to participate in those responsibilities. 

134 



133 



135 



28 

Here was a new difficulty that seemed insuperable. 
The wise provisions of the act of 1822, would prove abor- 
tive, and the benefit of the grants would be lost, probably 
forever, in consequence of the feeling which pervaded the 
whole community, against the system of lotteries, and 
which had compelled the insertion in the new constitution, 
of an express prohibition of. them, unless Union College 
came to the rescue. Again, the President of that college 
interposed to extricate it from this complication of diffi- 
culties. He proposed to the trustees of Union College, to 
purchase the interest in the lottery of all the other insti- 
tutions, and this being accomplished, to assume all the 
hazards and responsibilities imposed by the act, to defray 
all the expenses of the management, drawing and conduct 
230 of the lottery. 

The Trustees of Union College at a meeting on the, 24th 
of July 1822, concurred in this proposition, by authorizing 
the Treasurer with the consent of the President, to accept 
the provisions of the act of 1822, and to make such con- 
tracts relative to the said lottery as the President should 
approve, and committing to the president the supervision 
of the lottery, with authority to exercise in behalf of the 

137 College all the powers vesting in it, by the provisions of the 
act of 1822. (Doc. Ill, folio 13.) 

If the contract of purchase from the other institutions, 
could be perfected as proposed by the President and assen- 
ted to by the Trustees, then Union College, would be " ap- 
pointed " to assume the supervision and direction of the 
lottery, within the express terms of the act of 1822, and 
would be vested with all the powers conferred by that act. 

138 By the resolution quoted, these powers were transferred to 
the President. 

The President immediately commenced operations to 
purchase the interests of the other institutions in the lot- 
tery. This was effected with monies borrowed on the in- 
dividual responsibility of the President, in connection with 
that of the College, at the cost of $74,725. 94 as stated by 

139 the accountant (page 173, 174,) irrespective of interest, and 



29 

with a contingent obligation to Hamilton College, which 
will be hereafter noticed. 

The act of 1822 provided that the several institutions 
should be limited in the drawing of the lottery, to such a 
time as should be determined by the Comptroller, which 
should be less at all events, than the time in which the 
State could raise the amount, at the rate that monies had 149 
hitherto been raised by lottery ; and also, that the annual 
average amount of tickets to be drawn, should not exceed 
the annual average amount of tickets, according to their 
scheme price, which had been drawn in lotteries within five 
years previous to January 1, 1822, to be ascertained by the 
Comptroller; and that the time in which the lotteries 
were to be drawn, when so determined, and the annual 
average of the whole when so ascertained should be certi- 141 
fied by the Comptroller. 

Accordingly, John Savage, then Comptroller, on the 9th 
of April 1822, certified that the amount then due to the 
several institutions, by virtue of the aforesaid grants, was 
three hundred and twenty two thousand, two hundred and 
fifty six dollars and eighty one cents, and that the same 
Could be raised and paid in eleven years. And the Deputy 
Comptroller, Ephraim Starr, certified that the amount of *$r 
tickets at their scheme price during the five years preced- 
ing the 1st of January, 1822, had been 1,679,000 dollars, 
and that to this should be added the further amount of 
the Oswego lottery, which was afterwards found to be 
300,000 dollars, making the whole amount 1,979,000 dol- 
lars. (Doc. IV, folio 15 to 22, and folio 23 to 27.) 

Calculating the annual average of tickets at the rate -^g 
thus certified by the Deputy Comptroller, the whole amount 
of tickets at their scheme price, to be drawn in 11 years, 
(the time fixed by the Controller,) would be $4,353,800 
adding to this for the five months of time for 
drawing the amount subsequently granted to 
the Historical Society, which would be required 
according to the same rate $139,000 144 



145 



148 



30 

made the total amount of tickets at their scheme 

price which might be drawn $4,492,800 



The mode of raising money by the drawing of lotteries, 
authorized by the acts of the legislature previous to 1822, 
was by deducting from the amount of the prizes drawn 
in any lottery, fifteen per cent thereof, so that a nominal 
prize of 10,000 dollars would be really 7,500 dollars; and 
in order to raise any given sum, the amount of the tickets 
to be sold and drawn in any lottery, was fixed at such a 
sum that fifteen per cent on the prizes therein would pro- 
duce the amount required. (See Yates and Mclntyre's 
bill in Chancery, produced by the accountant, p. 6 and 7.) 

The compensation for supervision and management had 

146 keen fi xe d °y sec - 25 of chap. 106 of the laws of 1819, at 
fifteen per cent, on the sum raised by each lottery, for all 
services and expenses in conducting and drawing the same. 
A short calculation will show that fifteen per cent, on the 
sum raised is equal to two and one-fourth of one per cent, 
upon the whole amount of tickets at their scheme price, 
drawn in any lottery. This system and these calculations 
were well known and understood at the time. 

147 As the manager of a lottery could not be expected to 
undertake personally the sale of tickets, and encounter 
the hazards of having on hand any part of them when the 
drawing should close, it was expedient to enter into a con- 
tract with dealers to take the whole amount of tickets in a 
lottery, and dispose of them, and risk the contingency of 
effecting sales, as well as the hazard of loss from sales on 
credit to retail dealers. To compensate for this risk and 
some expenses attending the drawings, an allowance must 
be made to the contractors out of the fifteen per cent, de- 
ducted from prizes. In the contract with Yates and Mc- 
Intyre hereafter mentioned, this allowance was fixed at 
four per cent., part of the fifteen. The compensation for 
supervision and management, as already mentioned, was 
two and one-quarter per cent. Deducting these sums 

149 would leave eight and three-quarters per cent, out of the 



150 



151 



31 

fifteen, for the purposes of the grant. Applying these prin- 
ciples to the whole amount of tickets to be sold and drawn 
at their scheme price, as above mentioned, $4,492,800, 

eleven per cent, thereon would be 494,208 

deducting for management 2\ per cent., 101,088 

would leave for the purpose of the grants 8|,. .$393,120 
The remaining four per cent would be the allowance to 
the contractors. But this sum of $393,120 was to be 
raised in eleven years, according to the certificate of the 
Comptroller. The present value of that sum, payable in 
that time, was $276,090.14. 

Having thus ascertained the present value of the grants 
to all the institutions, and having acquired the interests of 
the others, or having made arrangements for that purpose* 
Dr. Nott, in pursuance of the authority given by the reso- 
lution of the trustees of Union College, of the 24th July, 
1822, before quoted, approved a contract made under his 
direction by the treasurer of Union College with John B. 
Yates and Archibald Mclntyre, dated July 29th, 1822, by 
which, in consideration of $276,090 . 14, (the sum ascer- 
tained as above mentioned,) for which Yates and Mclntyre 
gave their note, with interest annually, Union College -k^ 
agreed to transfer to Yates and Mclntyre " all the light 
and title of the said party of the first part, in their own 
right, and as legally representing the aforesaid institutions, 
in and to the whole amount of tickets, at their scheme 
price, authorised to be sold by virtue of the aforesaid act." 
The allowance of two and a quarter per cent, on the 
amount of prizes drawn, made by law for expenses and 
services in the supervision and management of the lotte- ^3 
ries, remained to be provided for. This was done by a sup- 
plemental contract, made under the direction of the pre- 
sident, and approved by him, at the same time, between 
the same parties, by which Yates and Mclntyre agreed 
" to pay for supervision and management, the same per 
centum on each class, immediately after the drawing there- 
of, as has heretofore been paid to managers appointed by -. 



32 

the State," which was to be deposited in a bank to the 
credit of the president. (Doc. VI, folio 39.) 

The same agreement contained a stipulation that Yates 
and Mclntyre might elect to pay their note of $276,090.14 
in annual instalments of $39,312, which were to be depo- 
sited, and they might anticipate such instalments, in which 

255 case a rebate of interest was to be allowed them. 

These contracts having been made, and Yates and Mc- 
lntyre having completed their arrangements, they com- 
menced the selling of tickets . in the beginning of the 
month of April, 1823. (See their bill, p. 8.) They pro- 
ceeded with apparent success for a year or two, when they 
became environed with difficulties and embarrassments 
from the want of funds, caused, as is believed, by their 

25g adventuring in other speculations, and by a deficiency of 
prudence and economy. In their emergency they applied 
to Dr. Nott for assistance. The college could render them 
none, for it was much indebted, and its corporate responsi- 
bility could be of no avail under such circumstances. 
Yet it was evident that the fruits of so many years of toil 
and risk would be utterly lost, unless the contractors were 
enabled to proceed in the sale and drawing' of tickets. 

157 Dr. Nott came forward, by pledging his own and his wife's 
property, and by indefatigable personal exertions, he ob- 
tained credits and means to relieve Messrs. Yates and Mc- 
lntyre. A reference to the particular evidence of these 
facts is reserved to another place in this discussion. 

But Dr. Nott justly considered that the profits accruing 
from the use of the capital he had furnished, should not 
be exclusively appropriated to themselves by the contrac- 

158 tors, and they were of the same opinion. There was also 
some disagreement between them and Dr. Nott, respecting 
the construction of their first agreement, relating to the 
rebate of interest. 

Under these circumstances Messrs. Yates & Mclntyre, 
on the 4th of January, 1826, addressed a proposition to Dr. 
Nott, (folio 88, Doc. IX,) wherein they recite that they 
have given their note for $276,090, and state that "such 

159 have been our losses, that we have no reasonable prospect 



of being able to pay the sum stipulated, or even to pay the 
prizes in the lottery now pending, unless we can procure 
immediate pecuniary assistance to a large amount." They 
therefore propose that Dr. Nott and the treasurer should 
raise for their immediate relief $100,000 and such further 
sum as should be necessary to sustain their credit. And, 
they say, " in consideration thereof, we are willing to pay 
you such additional sum as shall, together with the $276,- 
090.14, for which we admit we are now holden, amount to 
eleven per cent on the whole amount of tickets sold, or to 
be sold by us ; the same to be paid, estimating the per 
centum on the tickets sold, at their scheme price in each 
class, and in all the classes hitherto drawn, as well as those 
hereafter to be drawn under said act, immediately after 
the drawing thereof.' 5 This proposition having been ac- pi 
ceded to, was reduced to a formal stipulation on the 24th 
of January, 1826. (Folio 106, Doc. XIII.) 

The required assistance was furnished, and the contrac- 
tors proceeded in the selling of tickets and drawing the 
classes of the lottery. 

They had, however, become interested in the Fever 
Hospital lottery and in the Albany Land lottery, but which 
could not be drawn until the Literature lotteries were -,qo 
finished, without the assent of Dr. Nott, nor could the 
tickets be sold and the drawings completed without his 
personal aid and credit. New propositions were made by 
them to him on this subject, and new stipulations entered 
into between them and Dr. Nott. But as it is universally 
conceded that the profits arising from these stipulations 
belonged exclusively to Dr. Nott personally, and that the 
college had no interest whatever in them, and the ac- 163 
countant even can find no ground for claiming them for the 
college, it is not necessary to extend this narrative by par- 
ticular notice of them. The claim which the accountant 
has interposed for the college after the completion of his 
labors, and nearly the close of the sittings of the commit- 
tee, for some compensation out of these profits on account 
of a supposed delay in the drawing of the Literature lotte- 
ry, by mixing a portion of the tickets with those of the 164 



34 

other lotteries, is so wholly unsupported by any evidence 
either of delay or injury, is so unlikely to have escaped the 
vigilance of such men as Wm. James, Silas Wright, A. C. 
Flagg, J. A. Dix, and others, and is so obviously an after- 
thought, that it is not deemed worthy of examination. 
The drawings of the lottery were finished in Nbvem- 

265 ber, 1827. (See last item on Cr. side of settlement of 1828? 
p. 35 of documents.) 

Thus in four years and seven months from the time when 
the sales of tickets commenced, as before stated, in the be- 
ginning of April, 1823, and in five years and seven months 
from the passage of the act of 1822, these drawings, which 
it had been estimated by the Comptroller would require 
eleven years, were completed. Under whose agency and 

166 ky whose powerful aid this was accomplished, the corres- 
pondence of Yates & Mclntyre abundantly shows. 

In December, 1828, a settlement was made with Yates & 
Mclntyre, of their liabilities and payments under their con- 
tracts and stipulations. The settlement bears date and is 
made as of August 1 , 1828. A copy of it is given at pages 
32, 33 documents, and in the accountant's report p. 176, 
&c. ; although there is an error in the latter, in stating 

jg>7 the interest on the balance due at $12,506.16, which should 
be $21,506.16. 

In this settlement Yates & Mclntyre are charged, not 
with their note for $276,090.14 originally given, nor with 
annual instalments which they had at one time elected to 
pay, but with eight and three-quarters per cent, on 
each scheme of the different classes of lotteries as they 
were drawn, for the college, and two and a quarter per 

168 cent on eacn °f the said schemes, for the President's Fund, 
making eleven per cent, in strict conformity with the sti- 
pulations of January 4th and 24th of 1826. 

On this settlement, Yates & Mclntyre charged them- 
selves, on account of the above mentioned eight and three- 
quarters per cent, on the scheme price of tickets in the dif- 
ferent classes, a principal sum of, $433,002 23 

And for interest, 79,231 39 



169 



Making, $512,233 62 



35 

The amount of Yates & Mclntyre's original 

note was, $276,090 14 

The int. thereon from April 

1, 1823, (when interest 

commenced) to August 1, 

1828, 5 years 4 months,. . 103,073 60 

379,16 3 74 ^ 

Leaving, as the profits derived from the sti- 
pulations of 4th and 24th January, 1826, $133,069 88 

which were realized over and beyond the original note. 
The balance owing by Yates and Mclntyre upon their 

admitted liability as above, was $1 15,877.73 for principal, 

and $21,506.16, for interest, making $137,283 89 

there was deducted from this, as belonging to 

the original agreement, 4,214 01 171 

which leaves the same balance before stated, $133,069 88 

This sum was put into 24 notes, payable at different 
timeSj ending 1st December, 1831, with the interest inclu- 
ded, and making in the whole, $1 62,71 3 78 

Of this sum, there was appropriated to 

Union College, $95,165 09 

of which there belonged to it on acc't of 

the original agreement, the above sum of 4,214 01 

so that there was apportioned to the college 

as its share of the profits resulting from 

the stipulations of January 4th and 24th, 

1826, 90,951 08 

There was apportioned to Dr. Nott as his 

share of the same profits, 71,69170 173 

making very nearly the above amount to be 

divided $162,642 78 

The difference being owing probably to some miscalcula- 
tion. 

This sum of $71,690.70, is claimed by the accountantas 
having been erroneously allowed to Dr. Nott, and is 
charged against him with interest. This is the second of 174 



36 

the principal matters in dispute, which will hereafter be 
separately discussed. 

Yates and Mclntyre proceeded with the Albany land 
lottery and the Fever hospital lottery, under their stipu- 
lations with Dr. Nott, and made considerable payments, 
until some dispute arose between them. 

175 On the 26th of May, 1834, Dr. Nott filed a bill in 
chancery in his own name and in that of the trustees, 
against John B. Yates, A. Mclntyre, Henry Yates, James 
Mclntyre and John Ely, Junr., founded upon the stipula- 
tions respecting the Albany land lottery and the Fever 
hospital lottery, claiming large balances to be due. As a 
reason for making the trustees of the college, co-plaintiffs, 
the bill stated that he had often expressed his determination 

176 to appropriate his share of the profits arising from the said 
stipulations, after providing for expenses, reverses and 
hazards incurred, to the use of Union College or some 
kindred institution connected therewith, reserving to him- 
self only the right of determining the objects to which the 
same should be applied, and the time and manner of ma- 
king the application ; and that in reports to the trustees 
in 1831 and 1832, he had stated this purpose, and had in- 

177 vited the requisite measures to be taken to give it effect, 
p. 26 of bill. The name of the Trustees of the college 
was thus used as equitable cestui-que- trusts of the fund 
sought to be recovered, but as it appears without their 
knowledge or consent. 

To this bill the defendants demurred, and the first and 
principal ground assigned was, that it did not appear by 
the bill that the Trustees of the college had any interest 

178 in or title to the relief sought, or any equity entitling them 
to a recovery ; and it was urged that the matter stated in 
the bill, did not show any assignment by Dr. Nott of his 
interest in the fund to the college, and that the whole in- 
terest in those stipulations was originally vested in him, 
and had not been divested. (P. 6, 27, 28, 29, &c, of 
Mr. Butler's agreement.) There were other grounds of 
a technical character. 

179 On the 4th of August, 1834, Yates & Mclntyre filed their 



37 

bill in Chancery against the Trustees of Union College and 
Dr. Nott, alleging mistakes in the settlement of 1828, and . 
particularly alleging that errors had been committed in the 
estimates of the Deputy Comptroller, of the amount of 
tickets at their scheme price, authorised to be drawn 
under the act of 1822, amounting as they alleged to 456,391 
dollars worth of tickets ; that they had paid to the college lfift 
the eight and three-quarters per cent on that sum in error 
and mistake, and praying that the amount thus paid, might 
be refunded to them. (P. 20, 21, of their bill.) 

The Trustees and Dr. Nott answered this bill, admitted 
the payment of sundry sums by Yates & Mclntyre on their 
original contracts and subsequent stipulations, but denied 
that the alleged error in the amount of tickets at their 
scheme price, existed. .. o-. 

While these suits were pending, and before any decision 
either upon the demurrer or upon the bill and answer, at 
the suggestion of either. Mr. Mclntyre or Mr. Yates, as 
testified by Mr. Flagg, who were desirous of a settlement, 
a meeting was had, and the terms verbally agreed on. 
They were afterwards reduced to writing, and signed by 
these parties, Yates, Mclntyre & Co., of the first part, 
Dr. Nott, of the second part, and the committee of the , g o 
trustees of Union College, of the third part, on the 27th 
July, 1837, and reported to the trustees, November 15, 
1838. Folio 205, &c, documents XXVII, XXVIII, 
XXIX, and particularly XIII, which is a copy of the agree- 
ment in full. 

The payments made under this bond, amounting to a 
very large sum, were completed on the 7th of March, 
1849. It is claimed by the accountant, that these pay- ^83 
ments, (except $29,430.92) belonged to Union College; 
but that sitting as a Vice Chancellor, he awarded the above 
excepted sum to Dr. Nott, because it clearly did not be- 
long either to Union College, or to Yates & Mclntyre ; and 
that he was disposed to be generous to Dr. Nott. 

As the narrative of the transactions with Yates & iWdn- 
tyre, and their successors, here closes, and as this item is 
altogether the most important one in controversy, and its 134 



38 

disposition will control much of the case, I propose to 
discuss it here, as being more convenient in connexion 
with the narrative just given, and while that is fresh in 
the mind. 

The accountant, Mr. Vanderheyden, in his testimony as 

a witness, states, what is, perhaps, substantially set forth 

135 in his statement, at page 126, that the consideration paid 

by Union College for this bond of $150,000, consisted in 

the agreement of the college ; 

1. To give up to the makers of the bonds, the succes- 
sors of Yates & Mclntyre, the bond and mortgage of J. B. 
Yates, for $55,000 : 
Amounting with the interest then accrued, to $73,237 50 

2. To release the assumption of Yates & 

186 Mclntyre, to pay the Comptroller's bonds 
to A. H. Lawrence, for the College of 
Physicians and Surgeons, amounting with 

interest then accrued, to 24,056 71 

3. To deliver up to the obligors, 19 notes of 
Yates & Mclntyre, taken at the settlement 
of 1828, and amounting with interest then 

accrued, to 22,674 87 

187 

Making in the whole, $120,569 08 

To which the accountant adds the balance 

which he has credited Dr. Nott, 29,430 92 

Which makes the sum of. $1 50,000 00 

And he says that the bond was taken for these items. On 
the face of this statement, what can be more absurd than 
to suppose that the makers of the bond would execute it 
to secure the payment of $29,430.92, more than was due, 
and more than the amount of the securities that were sur- 
rendered for it ? The witness testifies, expressly, that this 
sum did not belong to the college. There could be no 
earthly reason for including it in the bond, therefore 
which he claims belonged to the college. There was no 
IgQ more reason for crediting it to Dr. Nott, than to any other 



188 



190 



191 



39 

person. What kind of settlement was that by Yates & 
Mclntyre? According to Mr. Vanderheyden, they gave 
up clear and undoubted claims to a repayment of moneys 
erroneously received, claims sustained by the opinion of 
the Attorney-General, submitted to pay their own costs of 
two suits,(as no provision was made for them in the agree- 
ment,) and gave nearly $30,000 more for a settlement! 
In no other part of their history have they exhibited such 
fatuity. 

The accountant had great difficulty in making up the 
account at p. 186, so as to correspond with his strange 
theory. 

It will be seen by referring to it, that heavy payments 
were made by the obligors ; in the year 1837, $20,000 ; in 
the year 1838, $10,000 ; in the year 1844, $55,793.83, and 
so on until March 7, 1849. The whole interest on these 
payments up to the time of balancing the account, amount- 
ing to $58,342.32, he charges the college in his account of 
receipts and disbursements (No. 3) with having received. 
And yet he does not credit a dollar of it in the bond 
account at p. 186. Had he kept an interest account on the 
$120,569.08, the amount of the securities surrendered, and 
also upon the payments made by the makers of the bond, jgg 
the bond would have appeared to be overpaid some $20,- 
000. Adding this to the $29,430.92 which he had the 
generosity to give to Dr. Nott, would have swelled the 
balance so enormously as to utterly destroy the whole fa- 
bric he had raised. He therefore gives the makers of the 
bond no credit whatever for any balance of interest in their 
favor, but cunningly transfers his troublesome balance to 
the Doctor's side of the college account. 193 

Can this mode of making up the bond account be ac- 
counted for otherwise than by attributing a settled design 
to pervert a plain transaction, and to distort and suppress 
facts in order to accomplish some foregone purpose ? 

Is it to be wondered at, that one of the most accomplish- 
ed accountants in our State, (Edward James, Esq.) in his 
testimony before you, should pronounce it incomprehensi- 194 
ble. 



195 



196 



40 

The narrative already given of the pleadings in the 
suits between the parties, and the testimony of A. C. Flagg 
and John A. Dix, show this to be one of the most plain 
transactions in ordinary life. 

Yates & Mclntyre claimed that by reason of an error in 
the estimate of the whole amount of tickets at their scheme 
price that might be drawn, they had overpaid Union Col- 
lege. Dr. Nott claimed that there was a large sum due 
him from Y. & Mel. on stipulations in which the college 
had no legal interest. A settlement is proposed by Yates 
or Mclntyre. They consent to relinquish their claims for 
overpayment, on having surrendered to them securities 
and liabilities to the amount of $94,448.47. In this, says 
Mr. Flagg, who was one of the committee, the trustees 
agree, being convinced that there was such an error. It 
was conceded, he says. Here the controversy between the 
college and Yates & Mclntyre, is terminated. But the 
latter desire a final settlement of the whole matter ; and 
there is a suit pending against them by Dr. Nott to recover 
large sums agreed to be paid to him individually, and 
which they have by their own pleading insisted, did belong 
to him individually and that the college had no interest 

1 97 in them. These claims they wish to extinguish. Dr. 
Nott, says Mr. Flagg and Gen. Dix, was very unwilling to 
compromise his claims, but finally, at their earnest re- 
quest, consents to do so. And they testify that these 
claims were liquidated at $150,000, and that the successors 
of Yates & Mclntyre agreed to secure that sum by this 
bond. 

According to Mr. Beekman's statement of the amount of 

198 tickets drawn at their scheme price in the Albany Land 
lottery and in the Fever Hospital lottery, (to which the 
stipulations refer, out of which Dr. Nott's claims arose,) 
which he made some six or eight millions, the per 
cent due Dr. Nott would have amounted to $300,000 or 
$400,000. 

His reluctance to yield the one half of this large amount 
to the demands of men already enriched by his labors and 

199 talents, as stated by Messrs. Flagg and Dix, is not surpri 



41 

sing. His generosity in doing so for the benefit of Union 
College, meets with a poor reward in the denial to him by 
strangers of even the moiety which was the price of his 
forbearance. 

This bond, says Mr. Flagg,was given to settle the suit of 
Dr. Nott against Yates and Mclntyre, brought to recover 
the percentage they had agreed to give him, and which the oqq 
College conceded belonged to him. Gen. Dix says he 
was also a member of the Committee, and that the amount 
agreed by Yates and Mclntyre's successors, to be paid to 
Dr. Nott, was $150,000, and that this was to be paid on 
one of the special agreements entered into, after the Col- 
lege had received the amount it was entitled to by law. 
He remembers Dr. Nott thought they ought to pay him double 
that sum. He says the remainder of the bond and mort- 201 
gage of J. B. Yates and of the notes of Yates & Mclntyre, 
and the release of their assumption to pay the bonds given 
for the College of Physicians, were in consequence of an 
alleged overpayment by Yates & Mclntyre, which the Col- 
lege admitted. I know, he says that Dr. Nott assented to 
the arrangement with great reluctance, and that in doing 
so, he surrendered his judgement to the earnest wish ex- 
pressed by Mr. Flagg, Gov. Marcy, Mr. Wright and my- 202 
self. 

Mr. Flagg says, Dr. Nott was decidedly averse to the 
settlement, and he thought he would recover a larger 
amount than the $150,000. Yates & Mclntyre's successors 
were anxious for the settlement. Mr. Wright was decided- 
ly of opinion, Dr. Nott could recover and the Dr. obsti- 
nately insisted on it that he could recover. 

The same account of the terms of this settlement, is 203 
given by Messrs Marcy and Flagg, two of the Committee 
who effected it, in their report to the Trustees of November 
15, 1838, (Doc. XXVII, folio 214,) that the amount to be 
received on the bond should be considered as received on 
the suit between Dr. Nott and Yates, Mclntyre, Ely & Co. 
That report speaks of a settlement to be made between Dr. 
Nott and the College, in respect to the amounts received 204 



206 



42 

on the bond. Until such settlement be made and Dr. Nott 
shall relinquish any portion of them, they belong to him. 
The original agreement, containing the terms of the set- 
tlement which has now been produced, and is printed in 
the accompanying case, (Doc. XLI1, folio 375) is conclusive 
on the subject. It recites the filing of the bill by Dr. Nott 

o k in his own name and that of the Trustees, against Yates & 
Mclntyre, as stated in the preceding narrative, and the 
claim of the College to $31,004.00 for money borrowed by 
Yates & Mclntyre, and also to " a large amount under 
certain agreements and stipulations as in said bill set 
forth " (and which I have in the narrative particularly re- 
cited,) and that the bill prays for a decree to compel the 
payment of such amount. It also recites the cross bill of 
Yates & Mclntyre. At folio 383, the agreement says, 
" which said bond is given for the claims set up by the 
said parties of the second part (Union College) as well as 
the third part, (E. Nott,) against the said parties of the first 
part." This puts at rest forever, the absurd pretence that 
the bond was given for the surrender of the securities, &c, 
as claimed by the accountant. 

Two circumstances have been made the ground of a 
frivolous cavil. One is, that the securities agreed to be 
surrendered, are to be retained by the College mntil the 
bond should be paid. This is untrue in point of fact, they 
were to be given up on receiving the bond, folio 387, 388. 
The other circumstance is, that the bond was made pay- 
able to Union College. Dr. Nott had repeatedly declared 
his intention of appropriating to the College, the profits of 
all his labors, services, advances and risks in the lottery 

208 business, and the Trustees had by resolution authorized 
the Treasurer to receive any monies or securities that Dr. 
Nott might deposit with him. There was great propriety in 
allowing his intended cestui -que-trust, to be his trustee also, 
and to receive and hold monies he destined for its benefit, so 
that in the event of his death or of any accident to him, the 
money would be safe and protected by his repeated reports, 
and declarations of his having bestowed it on the College. 

OQQ A trust was thus created, by which the College became 



207 



210 



211 



43 

trustee for Dr. Nott, to receive these payments and account 
to him for them. The agreement itself as already shown, 
declares this trust. But if there was any doubt on the face 
of the papers, parol evidence is perfectly competent to 
establish a resulting trust, such as this is. Mr. Green- 
leaf in his work on evidence, vol. 3, p. 70, has stated the re- 
sult of the law on this subject ; he says, " and irrespective of 
any allegation of fraud, it has been settled on great consid- 
eration, that parol evidence is admissible to prove the 
purchase money for an estate was paid by a third person, 
other than the grantee named in the deed, in order to es- 
tablish a trust in favor of him who paid the money." See 
also Boyd vs. McLean, 1 John. ch. 582, where the question 
is considered at much length by Ch. Kent. And he holds 
that such testimony is admissible and sufficient in the face 
oi the deed. This has been recognised by the Supreme 
Court and Court of Errors, repeatedly; 11 John. 91 ; 13 
John. 462 ; 16 John. 197, and in the other states, as well 
as in England. See Story's Eq., § 1201 n. 

Our statute relating to resulting trusts in land, of course 
has no application to such trusts of personal property. 
The law remains the same as it always w r as, in respect to 
that species of property. 

It is idle to say, as has been intimated by Mr. Vander- 
heyden, w 7 hile acting as counsel, that if there was any error 
in the estimate of the scheme amount of tickets, the profits 
arising from the excess belonged to the State, and not to 
Yates & Mclntyre. The question is not whether the col- 
lege was legally bound to repay the excess to Yates & Mc- 
lntyre, but it is, what in fact did they agree to do? For 
if they agreed to repay it by the surrender of the securi- 013 
ties specified, and the release of the assumption in respect 
to the bonds for the College of Physicians, then that sur- 
render and release formed no part of the consideration for 
the bond of $150,000 

But in truth, Yates and Mclntyre claimed in their bill 

that they were entitled to this excess under other laws. 

If they are not, they and their representatives are respon- rt „' 

214 



212 



215 



44 

sible to the State for the excess : Union College has none 
of it. 

It is alleged by the accountant, acting as counsel, that 
in several reports of the treasurer to the trustees of Union 
College, he states the balance due on this $150,000 bond 
among the productive funds of the college. He does so, 
but it is to be remarked, that while all the other bonds are 
reported in mass, stating merely their amount, this bond 
is always entered separately and specially, as if it did not 
belong to the general mass. 

In other reports it is included among the funds, but 
with a special reference to its character. Thus, in the 
report of 1845, as I have shown the committee, in the 
original minutes of the trustees, it is entered thus : " To 

o 16 balance on Yates, Mclntyre, Ely and Mclntyre's bond, 
subject to future settlement with Dr. Nott, as per stipula- 
tion of finance committee, $31 ,246 . 44." Surely, the omis- 
sion to make such a special entry in all the reports, when 
the facts were so well known, amounts to nothing. At all 
events, this entry nullifies preceding entries of a different 
character. 
The accountant has also referred to one or two of the 

21 7 annual reports of the treasurer in behalf of the trustees to 
the Legislature, wherein the balance due on this bond ap- 
pears to be included in the total amount of the property 
of the college. The treasurer might well make this state- 
ment while he regarded this bond and its proceeds as equi- 
tably belonging to the college, in virtue of the repeated 
declarations in the reports of the president, of his having 
destined it for the college, and with the knowledge that 
it had been received and was held by him (the Treasurer), 
under resolutions of the board, authorising him to receive 
payments on it. The including the balance due on the bond 
among the property of the college, in his report, deceived 
no one and could injure no one. It told the substantial 
truth, and the occasion did not require an explanation of 
the trust. 

The accountant has also called attention to the circum- 

219 stances, that in his answer to a question of the Assembly 



218 



45 

committee in 1850, Mr. Holland said that a settlement had 
been made with Dr. Nott, and the college owed him $41,- 
340 . 57. Mr. Holland answered that he had been for some 
time under an erroneous impression, that the basis of the 
settlement made by the treasurer, and sanctioned by the 
finance committee, (detailed in doc. XXV, fol. 200,) made 
July 26, 1837, was applicable to the bond of $150,000, 020 
and he had apportioned the payments received on the bond, 
according to that basis, and had stated a balance accord- 
ingly. But he says he was mistaken ; that the resolutions 
directing the basis referred to, to be ascertained, were passed 
before the bond for $150,000 was given, and before the 
arrangement on which it was predicated had been perfected, 
and could have no reference to that bond. And this mis- 
take accounts also for his having stated in his reports, as 221 
treasurer, the balance due on the bond, as the property of 
the college, supposing that balance to have been its pro- 
portion. 

But what is the proper and legal effect of any state- 
ments in reports made by their treasurer to the trustees, 
or in their name to the Legislature ? They cannot have 
the effect of rescinding formal and solemn agreements, 
especially when they contain different versions, and are 222 
made under the circumstances mentioned. They can be 
used only as admissions by the parties of a state of facts, 
which originally entitled the trustees to the fund in ques- 
tion. But the statements import no such thing; their si- 
lence, in some instances, to specify the trust, would not 
prove that there was none, while the explicit declaration 
of the trust in one of them, proves the fact. How can 
such after statements be permitted to override and defeat 223 
the formal instruments and reports made at the time, de- 
claring the trust ? 

But it is in vain thus to assail the conclusive evidence of 
the original transaction. It does not help a single step to 
establish the position of the accountant that the $150,000 
bond was a substitute for the securities surrendered by 
the college to Yates & Mclntyre. And that position ut- 
terly failing, there was no consideration whatever for 224 



225 



226 



46 

this bond, moving from the college, and as it must belong 
to the trustees or to Dr. Nott, it was the property of the 
latter, who did yield an abundant consideration as already 
shown. 

The accountant, as I understand him, contends that the 
college was entitled to the benefits arising from the stipu. 
lations of May 26, or 30th, 1826, and of July 15, 1830, 
(Doc. XVIII, and part of XVIII, p. 29, 31 ,) out of which it 
is conceded on all sides, the claims arose, for the satisfaction 
of which the $150,000 bond was given, and he founds this 
upon certain statements in the answer of the trustees and 
of Dr. Nott, to the bill in chancery of Yates & Mclntyre. 
I do not propose to analyse the answers, and show how 
mistaken the accountant is. It would require a comparison 
wi?h the charges in the bill, to know precisely what the 
answer referred to, which would be too tedious and out of 
place here. There is a complete and decisive reply to 
this pretence, in the accountant's printed statements and 
in his testimony before you. From page 168 to 172, of 
his printed report, is a statement of the moneys paid on 
the stipulations in question, amounting to $192 3 1 90.94. 
This sum, the accountant has repeatedly sworn, belonged 
to Dr. Nott, individually, and that the college had no claim 
upon it, except for some contingent and indefinite amount 
of supposed injury arising from the delay in drawing the 
Literature lottery, in consequence of mixing it with the 
Fever hospital and Albany land lotteries. This sum of 
$192,190.94 is only a portion of the claims of Dr. Nott 
upon those stipulations ; and if it belongs to him, the resi- 
due of the claim must be of the same character. And it 
was this residue that constituted the consideration for the 
$150,000 bond. It is wholly immaterial, therefore, what 
statements are made in the answer. They cannot over- 
come what is conceded on all sides and ever has been. 

I may not leave this subject without calling the atten- 
tion of the committee to the perverseness of the account- 
ant in so entirely changing the character and consideration 
of this bond, in the face of the plainest evidence that was 
229 in his possession, and to the trickery exhibited in making 



227 



228 



47 

up the fabulous account at page 186, of his book, to his 
suppression of the interest received on the bond, because 
it would overturn his account, to the absurdity of his giv- 
ing Dr. Nott credit for a part of it, when he denied his 
right to any portion of it ; and to the obstinacy with which 
he lias adhered to his fabrication, down to the very last 
moment. And I ask whether his whole conduct in this 
matter, does not betray a settled design to make up a start- 
ling balance against Dr. Nott, at all events, by withholding 
from undoubted credits to the amount of $342,748.72? 

I will now proceed to discuss the charge made by the 
accountant against Dr. Nott, for the avails of the 2\ per 
cent fund, called the President's Fund ; a charge of his 
own original making, and which the Trustees of the college 
had never preferred. This 2J per cent is the amount of 
compensation to the managers of lotteries for supervision 
and management, provided by §25 of" an act concerning 
lotteries," passed April 13, 1819, chap. 206, as follows : 
" That on the final settlement of the accounts of the seve- 
ral lotteries hereafter to be drawn in this State, the Comp- 
troller shall allow fifteen per cent on the sum raised by 
such lottery to the said managers, in lieu of all compensa- 
tion for services and expenses, in conducting and drawing 
the same." 

This compensation had varied from time to time, having 
been originally ten per cent, then fourteen, and afterwards 
fifteen per cent ; and it was the only compensation allowed 
the managers for their services and expenses. 

This fifteen per cent on the sum raised is equal to 2 \ per 
cent on the amount of tickets drawn at their scheme price 
as previously remarked. 

Of course the amount was a charge upon the lottery, and 
must be first deducted from the amount raised. 

It thus appears that there were two distinct sums or 
amounts to be raised by this lottery. 

1st. The amount of the grants^irected to the several 
institutions, with interest for six ySars, except that to the 
Historical Society, which was without interest. 



230 



231 



232 



233 



234 



236 



48 

2d. The expenses of management and supervision, fixed 
at |Lfteen per cent " on the sum raised." 

The latter being in items for expenses and services in the 
management and supervision, necessarily appertained to 
the person or persons who rendered the services and in- 
curred the expenses. It was in lieu of the sums that had 
- theretofore been paid to the managers of lotteries for their 
compensation, which had always been raised out of the lot- 
teries, over and above, and in addition to, the principal 
sums granted, had been received by the managers for their 
personal benefit, and had never been paid to or pretended 
to be claimed by the persons or institutions for whose be- 
nefit the lotteries were authorized. And so in the present 
case. Union College and the other institutions named in 
the act, could derive no other or greater sum or benefit 
from it, than that which the act expressly granted. The 
State managers were entitled to the compensation for ser- 
vices and expenses. The institutions themselves had no 
more claim to it than any stranger. 

This principle was not only recognized but reiterated 
and enforced by the act of 1822, chap. 163. 

By the preamble to the 5th section it is declared : 
" Whereas the object of this act is not to increase the grants 
made to the said institutions, but to contract with them for 
assuming the responsibility and running the hazard and 
taking the management of the Literature lottery," &c. 

The 6th section provides, " that said institutions shall 
apply the avails of said lottery (after deducting the ex- 
penses of managing the same) pro rata, according to the 
provisions of the original act in which said grants were 
made," &c. The division is not to be in proportion to the 
respectives sums granted, but simply "according to the 
provisions of the original acts, to carry out its provisions," 
and the expense of managing the lottery, was thus ex- 
pressly excluded from the distribution pro rata among the 
institutions. That expense (fixed at 15 per cent as already 
mentioned) then, did not and could not belong, legally, to 
the institutions. 

Yet there was a mode by which the colleges could derive 



237 



238 



49 

the benefit of any savings from the fund, by prudence 
and economy. That was, that some person should assume 
the management and supervision of the lottery under their 
appointment, who, while he would be legally and strictly 
entitled to the compensation absolutely fixed by law, would 
apply whatever surplus could be realized after an econo- 
mical management, to the benefit of Union and Ham- qaq 
ilton Colleges. Hence Dr. Nott offered to take into 
his own hands the entire management and supervision of 
the lottery, declaring then, and repeatedly afterwards, 
verbally and in writing, that he should derive no per- 
sonal benefit irom the amount so realized, but should v 
devote it to the use of Union and Hamilton colleges. The 
rights and interests of the other institutions had been ac- 
quired absolutely, and they had no equitable claim upon 241 
the fund. 

It was with this view and for this purpose that the re- 
solution of the Trustees of Union College was passed on 
the 24th of July, 1822, conferring on Dr. Nott the sole 
and exclusive supervision and management of the lottery. 
(See folio 13, Doc. III.) 

And it was for this purpose that the supplemental con- 
tract of July 29th, 1822, was made with Yates & Mclntyre, £42 
(Doc. V, folio 29) by which they agreed to pay M for su- 
pervision and management the same per centum on each 
class, immediately after the drawing thereof, as has here- 
tofore been paid to managers appointed by the State," by 
depositing the same to the credit of the President. The 
amount of the principal grant ($276,090.14) was, by the 
original agreement, to be paid to the Treasurer of Union 
College. Thus the funds were to be kept distinct, as they 243 
ever have been. The Treasurer has never received any 
moneys arising from this fund — has kept no account of it, 
and never made a report on it to the trustees. 

It was with the same view and purpose that in the con- 
tract between Union College and Hamilton College, (Doc. 
VII. folio 62,) dated October 12th, 1822, subsequent to the 
foregoing proceedings, it was provided that "the whole re- 
mainder which should be received by the Trustees of Union 244 

7* 



50 

College from the supervision and management of the said 
lottery, over and above expenses, and after meeting losses, 
should any occur, should be divided between the said col- 
leges pro rata or according to their respective interests in 
the lottery." 

This agreement, on the part of Union College, was pros- 
2 4 x pective and in anticipation of what they might receive in 
any way, whether by gift or otherwise. 

As the trustees of Union College must be presumed to 
have known that they could not legally and directly be 
entitled to this fund, the above agreement is in itself evi- 
dence of there having been an understanding with Dr. Nott 
in respect to its ultimate disposal by him. 

He thus became the voluntary trustee of a gift to those 
24Q colleges, consisting of the surplus that should be saved by 
his personal exertions and responsibilities, but which 
legally belonged to him. 

That the Board of Trustees so understood the transac- 
tion is manifest from all their subsequent resolutions and 
acts. 

The report of William James and Silas Wright, to the 
trustees, July 26, 1831, (Doc. XXI, folio 182) shows an 

247 excess of means in the treasury of the college, after having 
met expenditures and losses, of more than $100,000. 
"This amount is aggregated, they say, partly by the relin- 
quishment of salaries from principal officers ; $8,500 of it 
appears to have been a fortuitous result of a speculation in 
chances which had been generously added to the funds 
many years ago. The residue is composed of .the net 
gains on various speculations and contracts made on indi- 

248 vidual account (or names) and responsibility in the course 
of years, all of which had been applied to the sole use and 
benefit of the college. A sum of $42,000 out of the last 
mentioned sources, has been added to the fund since the 
last meeting of the board." 

The $42,000 had been deposited October 6, 1830, (see 
Accountant's statement No. 20, p. 132) and it is the only 
item of that account in the books of the college. This, 
249 



250 



51 

therefore, is the sum referred to by Messrs. James and 
Wright. 

Now it appears from the original entries in the cash 
book of the college from 1806 to 1833, under date of Octo- 
ber 12, 1830, that this same sum is entered as having been 
received from "the President's fund." 

Of course Messrs. James and Wright saw this entry ; it 
was the only evidence of the fact of the deposit. 

When they say then, that this sum "out of the last men- 
tioned sources" had been added to the funds of the col- 
lege, they say that this sum was derived from the net 
gains on various speculations and contracts made on indi- 
vidual account and responsibility. 

They knew of the two original contracts made with 
Yates & McIntyre,for they refer to the sums received from -_. 
them. 

They therefore say explicitly and unequivocally, that 
the 42,000 dollars were given on a contract, made on in- 
dividual account and responsibility. 

But further, in their report, under the head of funds . 
which had been received by the college, " either by indi- 
viduals and corporate donations, or by public appro- 
priations," (folio 145, )they put down as having been real- 9 k~ 
ized from the lotteries under the acts of 1814 and 1822, 
$200,000. In reference to that sum, they say r (folio 
154,) "that principal has been liquidated, together 
with the six years of interest due thereon, and is now 
held by the Trustees in obligations against the mana- 
gers of the lotteries, and in securities taken from them ,2' 
&c. Those gentlemen then knew what obligations and se- 
curities had been taken from Yates & Mclntyre, and they 253 
claim, in behalf of the college, that §200,000 of them, and 
six years interest, belonged to the college. Could such 
men have made such a statement, with the knowledge that 
obligations for the balance due on the President's fund, 
had also been given by Yates & Mclntyre, beyond the 
$200,000 and interest, without including those obligations, 
if they had not regarded them as the nett gains before 

mentioned, belonging to Dr. Nott? 

254 



255 



256 



52 

On the 15th of November, 1838, a report was, made by 
Messrs. Marcy and Flagg, (folio 205, Doc. XXVII,) in 
which they say, u That by the indenture entered into on 
the 29th of July, 1822, between Union College and Yates 
& Mclntyre, as modified by certain subsequent stipulations, 
the said Yates & Mclntyre covenanted to pay the Treasurer 
of Union College lor its entire right, title and interest in 
the Literature lotteiy, 8| per cent; and to pay to the 
President of the college for the supervision and manage- 
ment thereof, 2J per cent on $4,948,597 worth of tickets, 
reckoned at the scheme price, which was the amount com- 
puted to have been authorised to be drawn under the act, 
&c. 

Here again, is a distinct and unqualified assertion by a 
committee of the Trustees, that the college sold its entire 
right, title and interest in the lottery to Yates and Mclntyre 
for 8 1 per cent on the scheme price of the tickets, which 
was the $276,090.14 already stated by previous committees 
as the consideration, and of course, this consideration was 
all the college was entitled to. 

On the 23d of January, 1840, Messrs. J. P. Cushman 
and A. C. Paige, as a committee of Union College, ad- 
dressed a letter to a committee of Hamilton College, in 
answer to an application of the latter, among other things, 
for one-seventh of the President's tund. 

Further, in their statement of the funds of the college, 
(fol. 160 of doc's,) they have a head of securities taken on 
settlement of the amount due, under the act of 1814, with 
the items of bonds and mortgages taken in payment, and a 
note ; then bonds and mortgages guaranteed, $36,350, and 
finally notes for balance due, $57,475 . 39. This expression 
for balance due, can mean nothing else but the balance due 
under the act^f 1814. They thus acknowledge that all 
the college could claim under that act had been paid. Of 
course it had no further claim upon the president's fund, 
or any other. I do not know what stronger or more satis- 
factory evidence could be adduced of the extent of the 
college claim, than is furnished by this report. This re- 
port was adopted by t}ie board of trustees. The presi- 
259 



260 



261 



53 

dent had expressed his intention of giving to the college 
the whole of the nett gains spoken of by Messrs. Wright 
and James, and would naturally be desirous for his own 
protection, that the balance not yet paid in, should be as- 
certained by an officer of the college, by an examination 
of the vouchers. To enable this to be done, on the coming 
in and acceptance of the report of Messrs. Wright and 
James, in which the subject had been introduced as al- 
ready mentioned, the trustees passed a resolution, (doc. 
XXII, fol. 185,) authorising the treasurer to make a final 
settlement whenever desired by the -president , and to receive 
such balance. This is not the language of a creditor, but 
of a party receiving a favor ; and the special authority to 
receive the balance could hardly have been necessary to 
authorise the receipt of a debt to the college. In this re- 
solution therefor, the trustees themselves recognised and 
sanctioned the view that had been presented by Messrs. 
Wright and James of these " net gains on contracts on in- 
dividual account," of which I have shown they regarded 
the president's fund as a part. 

On the 24th November, 1834, William L. Marcy, Silas 
Wright, jr., and John P. Cushman, a committee to which 
an application of Yates and Mclntyre had been referred, 9fi9 
made a report, (fol. 186, doc. XXIII.) Reciting the 
transactions, they say, " on the 29th July, 1822, a contract 
was signed between J. B. Yates and A. Mclntyre and the 
trustees of Union College, by which contract Yates and 
Mclntyre were, (in addition to 2 J per centage on the gross 
amount of schemes, to be deposited to the credit of the 
president of Union College, being the legal per centage 
allowed for the management of the lotteries,) to pay to 
the treasurer of the college for the lottery, the sum of 
$276,090.14. This is an indirect recognition, that the 
above sum was to be paid for all the interest of the college 
in the lottery. 

In a letter of J. P. Cushman and A. C. Paige to a com- 
mittee of the trustees of Hamilton College, (fol. 80, 81 of 
documents,) they say " that the interests of Union College 
had been gratuitously promoted by hazards, assumed by Dr. 264 



263 



265 



266 



54 

Nott, in securing from the lottery, after paying all expenses, 
a considerable surplus to be divided between the colleges," 
(Union and Hamilton,) thus disclaiming all idea of legal 
right. 

Senator Beekman, after his own examination of the 
books, minutes, &c, of Union College, says, in his report 
to the Assembly, April 8,. 1850, Assembly doc. No. 190, 
" the fund denominated the president's fund, is not claim- 
ed by the college." 

The testimony of the Hon. John A. Dix, and of the 
Hon. A. C. Flagg, (fol. 289, 292, 293, 308, I>oc. XXXVIII,) 
is explicit, emphatic, and I submit, entirely conclusive on 
this point. These gentlemen were State officers and State 
trustees, and could have no object or motive other than the 
interests of the college, and the faithful application of the 
public grants. They both declare that this fund was uni- 
formly and continually regarded and conceded by all the 
trustees, except Mr. Henry Yates, (the partner of Yates 
& Mclntyre,) during their whole term of service in the 
board, to belong to Dr. Nott. Mr. Flagg was a member of 
the board nineteen years. Proof on this point might be 
multiplied, but it is deemed unnecessary. 

In his reports to the trustees of 1831 and 1832, (doc's 
XXXI, XXXII,) the president had expressed his design of 
bestowing the profits of the lotteries on the college ; he had 
paid in a portion of the fund |42,000, which had been re-d 
ported by a committee of the board as a gift. They had 
accepted it as such, and so represented it to Hamilton Col- 
lege, and had provided a mode for ascertaining the ba- 
lance when it should suit his convenience; they have 
never claimed it, although its existence was well known to 
them, and acquiesced in his written and practical asser- 
tion of his right to it, for twenty-five years and more. 
Would not any individual, in his transactions with another, 
be irrevocably and conclusively bound and estopped, both 
at law and equity, by such a course of conduct ? The 
law, in regard to corporations, is in no wise different, in 
this respect, than in relation to individuals. They are 
269 equally bound, not only by the acts, but by the mere ac- 



267 



268 



270 



271 



55 

quiescence of their trustees and agents* (2. Sanford 5 s 
Sup. Court, Rep. 52.) 

Had he appointed himself, or been appointed sole mana- 
ger, no question could ever have arisen. His position as 
a clergyman, and as the head of a literary institution, for- 
bade his thus publicly assuming the character of a mana- 
ger of lotteries. Resort was therefore had to other names, 
"and he appointed as managers Henry Yates, jun., to whom 
$1,300 per annum, was allowed ; Jonas Holland, to whom 
$1,000 per annum, was allowed ; and Joseph Horsfall, to 
whom $800 per annum was allowed." (Quoted from the 
report of Messrs. Marcy, Wright and Cushman, Nov. 24, 
1834.) But the devising and arranging the scheme, and 
the plan of drawing, adopted after Vannini's system, and 
the execution of all the details of the management, its 
correspondence and the collection of the sums due from 
the contractors, together with the responsibility of provi- 
ding the means of paying prizes in the inability of the 
contractors, devolved on Dr. Nott. He was, in fact, and 
to all intents and purposes, the manager of the lotteries. 
All this is abundantly shown by the correspondence of 
Yates and Mclntyre, the reports of committees, and the 
testimony of Messrs. Dix and Flagg. The nominal mana- 
gers, would, in fact, have the prima facie title to the su- 
pervision fund. But in his arrangements with them, Dr. 
Nott took care to provide against any such claim, by giv- 
ing them salaries, which they consented to receive, and 
thus precluded themselves from all other claims. 

It has been supposed that we regarded this as a gift by 
the college to Dr. Nott. The evidence would, undoubtedly, 
fully support such a view. Being a right in action, per- 
sonal property, it required no formal instrument for its 
transfer ; like all gifts of that kind of property, delivery or 
possession, with the knowledge of the owner, under a claim 
of title, and accompanied by engagements to bestow it on 
the owner, accepted and recognised by him, would, as be- 
tween individuals, be conclusive evidence of the donation 
originally. (10 John. Rep. 293; 22 Wend. 526.) And I 
know of no law that prevents a corporation from giving q 74 



272 



273 



275 



276 



56 

its property to any person, much less from making a re- 
muneration for labor and responsibility. As between it 
and its creditors, a question might arise on the validity of 
a naked gift, when it was insolvent. But strangers, among 
whom I include the State, have no right to enquire into or 
disturb even such a gift. Corporations have the absolute 
right of disposing of their own property. Kent's Com- 
mentaries, section 33, vol. 2, p. 281. 2 John. Ch. Rep. 
884, Angel & Ames on corporations, chap. 5, sec. 9, 1 Kyd. 
108. In Colchester vs. Lowten, 1 Vesey & Beames, 226, 
quoted and approved by Chancellor Kent, it was decided 
that neither a court of law or of equity will set aside or 
control an alienation of its property by a corporation, un- 
less it be made for an illegal purpose. The statute of 
charitable uses is not in force in this State ; so that no 
such authority can be exercised in that class of cases, in 
this State. And it cannot be pretended that here was any 
alienation of property, contrary to any provisions of law, 
for there was no law forbidding it ; or for purposes foreign 
to the lawful business and objects of the corporation. It 
was not made to carry on banking or insurance, or any for- 
eign or unlawful business. 
077 As between Dr. Nott and the college then, whether re- 
garded as a remuneration for services, or as a mere gift, 
the bestowal of this fund on him would be legal, valid and 
irrevocable. For an executed gift is as irrevocable as a 
transfer for consideration. 

While therefore, it might be claimed on either of these 
grounds, yet the one on which it has been placed, and which 
we regard as the true one, is that this fund never belonged 

278 to the College to give. This, it is thought, the previous 
remarks abundantly establish. 

The papers and books to which the accountant has had 
access, show that managers of the lotteries were appointed 
by Dr. Nott, that they were allowed salaries, and that other 
expenses were incurred in the supervision and management ; 
and that yet not an entry was to be found on the books of 
the College, of its Treasurer having paid a cent towards those 

279 expenses. It seems not to have occurred to him, that these 



57 

expenses must have been defrayed out of the fund ; for he 
charges the whole amount, without deducting a dollar, to Dr. 
Nott. In his argument as Counsel, the accountant seems to 
admit that there should be some deduction from the fund and 
from his charge against Dr. Nott for the whole balance 
and interest, on account of these expenses. But he quib- 
bles about the salaries of the managers being allowed, and 98 q 
its not being said that they were paid. The criticism is 
characteristic, inconsistent as it is, with the course of one 
who has allowed himself such latitude in contradicting 
the very words of entries. Had he done what he promised, 
submitted his accounts growing out of the lottery transac- 
tions to Dr. Nott for explanation, before submitting them 
to the commission, he would have been furnished with the 
details of this President's fund and the vouchers for the 281 
expenditures on its account, as they were furnished to the 
Treasurer. 

The very paper which he has produced and made evi- 
dence, the joint answer of the trustees and President to the 
bill of Yates & Mclntyre, and from which he has quoted 
so freely, contains the distinct averment at p. 24, 25, that 
the salaries mentioned in the report of Messrs. Marcy, 
Wright and Cushman, quoted at folio 270 ante, were paid 282 
to the several managers, Yates, Holland and Horsfall, from 
the 6th of January, 1823, to the 1st of April, 1828, besides 
the traveling expenses of Henry Yates. These salaries 
amounted to some $17,000, besides the traveling expenses 
of Henry Yates. Here was the evidence in his own posses- 
sion, of the same character precisely with that which he 
had used for making charges against the college and Dr. 
Nott, which he utterly disregarded; and which he now 283 
disregards in his attempt to show that a trifling deduction 
only should be made for these expenses. There must ne- 
cessarily have been others, in the employment of clerks, 
in the actual expenses of visiting New-York and in the 
various duties of such a position. 

But he says Henry Yates was the only manager who 
really rendered any service, or received compensation. 
How he can tell who was paid his salary, without an exa- 284 

8* 



286 



58 

mination of the vouchers, will be for him to explain. 
Henry Yates was indeed paid by the President for his ser- 
vices as manager, during a term of years when, as it after- 
wards appeared, he was a secret co-parrner of his brother 
John B. Yates and A. Mclntyre, in the very business lie 
was sent to New-York, as the agent of the college, to watch 

005 and guard on its behalf. And he thus pocketed his share 
of the profits of the lottery as a partner, and received pay 
for watching himself and his co-partners. 

The proof of these facts is furnished by the very bill in 
chancery produced by the accountant (p. 8). They were 
known to him, as he says he referred to this bill for some of 
his charges. The directions of the Senate to the commis- 
sion were explicit, that they should enquire a whether the 
President or any other officer, while in the employment of 
the college, participated individually in the profits of any 
lotteries which were appropriated by the acts granting such 
lotteries to Union College." (See resolution quoted at 
folio 90, ante.) With the knowledge of such participa- 
tion by Henry Yates, the Treasurer, and with this direc- 
tion before him, the accountant has not made the slightest 
allusion to the subject in his report. Whether he brought 
the subject to the notice of the commission, does not ap- 
pear. Such has been his impartiality! 

From this same Mr. Yates has the accountant obtained 
papers, pleadings, arguments of counsel, extracts from 
their books, and every other aid and assistance that could 
be rendered. Indeed it is notorious that Mr. Yates and 
his connexions have been active in what I do not hesitate 
to call a vindictive persecution of Dr. Nott. It is well 
known that one of those connexions, from the commence- 
ment of your enquiries, has filled the columns of the 
filthiest and most abandoned newspaper in the State, with 
garbled and partial statements of facts in the case, with 
wholesale misrepresentations, with abuse of me for under- 
taking the defence of Dr. Nott, and with one continued 
stream, black with malignity, of the most outrageous 
calumny against that old man. What portions of this 
scandalous attempt to prejudice your minds and the pub- 

289 



287 



288 



290 



291 



59 

lie judgment, previous to your report, you may have seen, 
I know not. But I do know, that with this exposition of 
the source of the attempt, you will not mistake its object, 
and that you will treat it with the scorn and contempt 
which every man having the least regard to justice or de- 
cency, will feel for it and its authors and abettors. 

You are too intelligent gentlemen, to be misled by the 
singular effort of the accountant, in his capacity of 
counsel, to give such a construction to the act of 1822, to 
limit the continuance of the lotteries, as shall vest in the 
institutions the 2 J per cent allowed the managers for their 
personal services and expenses. He is obliged to make 
the statute contradict itself, and to reject the clause which 
directs the distribution of the proceeds of the lotteries 
.among the institutions, after deducting the expenses of 
management and supervision, according to the original 
grants. You are too well acquainted with the principles 
of the construction of laws to be thns mislead. 

The accountant has referred to and read two passages in 
the joint answer of the Trustees and President of Union 
College, to the bill of Yates & Mclntyre ; one of them at 
p. 4, and the other at p. 24. 

In the first of these, at p. 4, the defendants are answer- 
ing an allegation in the bill, that the 2\ per cent was in- 292 
tended to provide for contingent losses, and was to be kept 
private, &c. And the answer says that the said fund was 
received by Dr. Nott, solely as the president and agent of 
Union College, conformably to a clause in their agreement 
with Hamilton College, (hereinbefore quoted and contain- 
ed in full in Doc. VII, folio 62) that the remainder of what 
should be received by Union College from that fund, should 
be divided between the colleges pro rata, &c. 

In the second passage of the answer, at p. 24, the defend- 
ants are answering a charge in the bill, that they pretend- 
ed the 2J per cent was for actual expenses incurred in the 
supervision and management of the lotteries, and they de- 
ny that they have made any such pretence, but aver that 
the same, irrespective of expenses incurred, belonged of 
right to the institutions, and that by virtue of this right, 



293 



294 



60 

and in reference to Hamilton College, the fund in question 
was kept separate. 

You have a perfect and consistent explanation of these 
passages, by referring to the reports of Dr. Nott in 1831, 
1832 and 1833, and to the other evidence already quoted, 
of his having bestowed the proceeds of this fund, after de- 

295 ducting expenses, on Union College, and of the college 
having accepted the gift, and promised Hamilton College 
its proportion. This fund, therefore, did belong, " of right " 
to Union College and Hamilton College, and was kept dis- 
dinct, as stated in the answer. To understand a part of 
an answer, it is necessary to see what the point in dispute 
was, and then to give the answer an application to that 
point, and that only. General words and expressions are 

296 to be restrained by the occasion, the subject and the parties 
or persons in reference to whom they are used. Here the 
answer was meeting the charge that actual expenses only 
of supervision and management were claimed by the de- 
fendants, so as to lay a foundation for the plaintiffs' claim- 
ing the surplus. The answer asserts that the whole be- 
longed to the two colleges of right ; in other words, deny- 
ing the right of the plaintiffs to any portion of it. The 

297 defendants were not called upon to say anything in rela- 
tion to the respective rights of the colleges and Dr. Nott, 
and they did not profess to speak on that point. To strain 
their language to include matter not in their minds when 
answering, would be as unjust as it is absurd. There was 
no occasion for their saying how the right was acquired. 
I have already shown that it could be acquired only 
through Dr. Nott, or some one assuming the management, 

298 who would bestow this surplus, above expenses, on them. 
It is this surplus that they are claiming, through this do- 
nation of Dr. Nott. 

In truth the answer, so far from contradicting the ground 
we have taken, illustrates and confirms the view I have 
presented at the early part of these remarks upon the sub- 
ject of this fund. 

The whole point of the reference to the answer, is to 

299 show that the college claimed this fund as an original right 



300 



301 



61 

under the acts. I have shown the answer does not assert 
this, and that such is not a fair implication from its lan- 
guage. But when you consider that this answer was made 
by Dr. Nott. you will see the downright absurdity of sup- 
posing that in it he intended to contradict his own reports 
to the Trustees, the uniform view he and they had taken, 
and their whole course of conduct on the subject ; especial- 
ly when he was not called on to speak at all on the point. 
No aid is therefore to be derived by the accountant from 
the answers, to overthrow the positions, we have taken in 
respect to this fund. 

As Dr. Nott has actually given the whole amount of the 
surplus of this fund, after deducting expenses, to the col- 
lege, the questions whether it originally belonged to him 
or to the college, or whether it became his by the acts of 
the Trustees as a remuneration for services, or as a dona- 
tion, become mere abstract speculations, without any prac- 
tical consequence whatever. Still, it was due to his cha- 
racter to show that he acted in good faith, and with a 
constant regard for the interests of the college. 

Another claim advanced by the accountant in behalf of 
Union College, and which the trustees have never asserted, 
relates to the amount of 22 notes a part of 24, received 302 
from Yates & Mclntyre, on the settlement of their accounts 
in 1828. This is stated in the accountant's report, at page 
130, (statement No. 19) as amounting with interest to 
$180,547.28, the principal being $71,691.20, and the bal- 
ance being interest for more than twenty years. 

For the history of the circumstances under which, and 
the considerations for which these notes were given, I 
would refer to the preceding narrative, folio 155 to folio 303 
175. 

This principal of these 22 notes is said by the account- 
ant in the caption ot the account, to have been received 
by Dr. Nott on account of the fund known by way of dis- 
tinction, as the 8 1 per cent college lottery fund. 

This statement is contradicted on the face of the receipt 
given to Yates & Mclntyre by Dr. Nott, and printed in the 304 



306 



62 

accountant's report, at p. 177. (See a copy Doc. XX, p. 
32, 33.) That receipt states expressly that the notes are 
received not only on account of the contract of July 29, 
1822, but also on account of a special stipulation respect- 
ing class No. 3, for 1825, of Literature lottery, and in 
consideration of the personal responsibilities of the Presi- 
dent and treasurer to be assumed to sustain the contrac- 
5 tors. This receipt can refer to nothing else but the stipu- 
lations of January 4th, and 24th, of 1826. By referring 
to the settlement of 1828, (Doc. XX, p. 32, of Doc's) it 
will b« seen that class No. 3, for 1825, of Literature lot- 
tery, is charged as having been drawn January 19, 1826 
upon which was due to the college $49,665.00. It will 
also be seen by the opposite column, that during the whole 
year 1826, there was paid by Yates & Mclntyre to the col- 
lege, only 3,000, which was made May 8, and that they 
had made no payment since April 13, 1825, although they 
were then indebted $57,000. These facts show how much 
they were embarrassed at that time. In their letter of Jan. 
4th, 1826, just preceding the close of the drawing of the class 
No. 3, for 1825, they say : "It has become necessary that 
we should inform you, that such have been our losses, that 
we have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay the 
sum stipulated, or even to pay the prizes in the lottery 
now pending , unless we can procure immediate pecuniary 
assistance to a large amount." They, therefore, propose 
the terms to which they will accede, if they can be relieved. 
(Doc. IX, folio 83.) This proposition was consummated 
by Doc. XIII, folio 105. In an instrument like this, which 
might come before the public, it was not deemed proper 

« 08 to state all the inducements, particularly one which would 
betray the financial embarrassments of Yates and Mcln- 
tyre. Now the receipt given on the settlement for the 24 
notes, says " that they are received in full of all demands 
against Yates & Mclntyre, arising out of the original con- 
tract ; and also out of a special stipulation by them made 
to provide for the payment of prizes in the class No. 3, for 
1826, of Literature lottery, drawn January 19, 1826." 

309 The notes were taken then to satisfy demands arising 



307 



310 



out of the stipulations of January 4, and 24, 1826, and 
" in consideration of the personal responsibility to be 
assumed by the President and Treasurer of Union College, 
in order to sustain the contractors in the further perform- 
ance of their contracts." These are the words of the receipt. 
That such responsibilities were assumed by the Presi- 
dent, is abundantly shown by the letters of Yates & Mcln- 
tyre, and other proofs that will be presently stated. But 
whether they were or not, here was a new consideration, 
entirely independent of the original agreement with Yates 
& Mclntyre for $276,090.14, and the receipt says the 24 
notes were received in part, on that consideration. 

In addition to the explicit language of the receipt, the 
caption and items of the account, show oh their face that it 
was not a settlement predicated upon the original contract «ii 
to pay $276,090.14, or on the notes given to pay that sum 
with interest in eleven years. Had it been, the account 
wouLi have stated on the credit side the note and interest, 
or the several notes and the times they became due, and 
the interest on them. Instead of that, the heading of the 
first column of figures on the credit side is, " 8| per cent 
on each scheme." Then the items are " literature lottery 
1st class, 2d class and so on, and the amount of 8| per cent gig 
on the scheme price of each class is carried out, exactly in 
conformity to the stipulations of January 4th and 20th of 
1826," "the same (the per centage) to be paid, estimating 
the per centum on the tickets sold at their scheme price 
in each class, and in all the classes hitherto drawn, as 
well as those hereafter to be drawn under said act, imme- 
diately after the drawing thereof." (Doc. IX.) 

This is the exact principle on which the account is 
stated, and the interest on the percentage upon each 
scheme is calculated from the time of drawing. Nothing 
can be more different in results than the two modes of sta- 
ting the account. 

Had it been stated in the form of crediting the College 
(equivalent, to charging Yates & Mclntyre,) the amount 
of the note for $276,090.14 with interest, and then credit- 
ing the College (equivalent to crediting Yates & Mclntyre) 014 



313 



315 



316 



317 



318 



319 



64 

with the payments on the Dr. side of the account as they 
stand, by thus stopping interest, the total amount due the 
College would not have been $300,000 ; or, if it had been 
stated in the Ibrm of crediting the College (or charging 
Yates & Mclntyre) with the ten notes of $39,312 each, ac- 
cording to the election given by the supplemental contract, 
then the total would have been $393,120, and indeed much 
less, because the interest on the last four notes would have 
stopped, they being paid before they became due ; whereas 
it is now $433,002.23, a result that could not possibly have 
been attained in either of the other modes of stating the 
account. There is therefor on the face of the account 
conclusive evidence that it was not made and settled, upon 
the original contract for $27(5,090.14 

But it affords in itself affirmative and conclusive evi- 
dence, from the fact of crediting the College the v percent- 
age on the scheme price of the tickets in each class, that 
it proceeded on the terms of the stipulations of January 4, 
and 24 of 1826, thereby recognizing those terms. There 
was no agreement or stipulation other than those, then 
in force, which provided for any percentage on any scheme 
price. 

It is evident on the face of the proposition, that it was 
made to induce great pecuniary advances to be made, per- 
sonal responsibilities to be incurred, and individual effort 
to find and procure the desired relief. In its terms it re- 
quired personal services, which, of course, the college 
could not render, and which were not within any legiti- 
mate duties of its president. Yates and Mclntyre were 
then greatly indebted to the college, as already shown ; 
the college was itself borrowing large sunis of money, as 
appears by the accounts, and had neither means nor cre- 
dit to afford the desired relief. That Yates and Mclntyre 
looked to and availed^themselves of the personal services 
and personal responsibility of the president, is abundant- 
ly established by their correspondence, of which a small 
portion only is printed in the accompanying documents. 

In their letter of May 30, 1826, written soon after the 
stipulation was accepted, (doc. XVIII, fol. 119,) they made 



320 



321 



65 

a new proposition in relation to other lotteries, in respect 
to which they say they have made a contract, " which con- 
tract they cannot execute without your content and co- 
operation, as it will require a further continuance of the 
heavy personal responsibilities assumed by you on our be- 
half," thus acknowledging that such responsibilities had 
been assumed. 

In a letter of A. Mclntyre, of January 23, 1826, (doc. 
XI, fol. 95.) he expressed "a grateful sense of our obli- 
gations to you for the prompt relief you have afforded us 
in the hour of our difficulty and distress. We were, it 
cannot be doubted, on the very verge of ruin." In a letter 
of the same person, May 15, 1830, (doc. XIX, fol. 125,) 
he says, " it gives me sincere pleasure, that we have been 
able at length, to get released your property, which you 
kindly hypothecated to raise funds frr us in 1826, to save 
us at a critical moment from ruin." 

The pamphlet called chancery documents, which Mr. 
Beekman made part of his testimony, abounds with ac- 
knowledgments by Yates and Mclntyre of monies, drafts 
and securities sent to them by Dr. Nott, many of them 
previous to their operations under the subsequent stipula- 
tions. 

But there is one decisive piece of evidence on the sub- 
ject, that disposes of this point. Jonas Holland, the trea- 
surer, was directed to ascertain the amounts of their res- 
ponsibilities and hazards, incurred respectively by the col- 
lege and Dr. Nott. He did ascertain and state them, (see 
doc. XXV, fol. 200,) and he says the responsibilities assumed 
by Dr. Nott in behalf of Yates and Mclntyre, amounted to 
$338,000, while those of the college were $140,000. The «oo 
amount of their responsibilities was to be ascertained from 
numerous papers and letters, many of them, doubtless, of 
a confidential character. Mr. Holland never could have 
discharged his duty without examining them, and the cha- 
racter we have had of him from all sides, forbids the idea 
of any collusion. He was the chosen agent of the college; 
his acts were communicated to its finance committee, who 
approved them, and the trustees were satisfied. Better 

9* 



322 



324 



326 



evidence than this of transactions that occurred more than 
twenty years since, cannot well be furnished. 

Some of the particular responsibilities assumed by him, 
that to Wm. James for his note of $100,000, and pledging 
his own and his wife's property to the amount of $40,000 
for the relief of Yates & Mclntyre, are stated in the re- 
~2K port of Messrs. Marcy and Cushman, of November 20 ■ 
1834. (Doc. XXIII, folio 185, beginning of the report.) 
And that the trustees themselves, understood and ac- 
knowledged that these stipulations of January 4 and 24, 
1826, were made with Dr. Nott individually, and not with 
the college, appears from the report of Messrs. Cushman 
and Dix, of July 25, 1837, (Doc. XXIV, folio 193,) where 
they say : " Whereas Yates & Mclntyre in addition to the, 
entire amount due to Union College under their contract of 
July 29, 1822, have stipulated to pay to Eliphalet Nott 
certain additional amounts in consideration of subsequent 
services rendered, monies advanced, and responsibilities 
assumed in behalf of Yates fy Mclntyre, either singly by 
himself, or jointly by himself and the college," &c. 

These advances were made and these responsibilities were 
incurred, on the faith of, and in consideration for the ad- 
ditional sum stipulated to be paid by Yates & Mclntyre, 
32? so as to make their entire payments equal to eleven per 
cent on the amount of tickets sold at their scheme price, 
and to be paid immediately on the drawing of each class. 
(Doc. IX and XIII.) 

These propositions were not in themselves contracts, 
from the want of mutuality ; there was no promise or en- 
gagement by Dr. Nott, or any other party to it but Yates 
& Mclntyre. It was the compliance with the request they 
328 contained, that made them contracts, and of course they 
were contracts with the parties who thus complied. They 
were consummated by the settlement of August 1, 1828, 
and they then became contracts, and their conditions were 
then fulfilled. I have already shown that that settlement 
was based on the terms of these propositions. 

If Mr. Henry Yates had any rights under them, he re- 
linquished them by being a party to that settlement, and 
assenting to the application of the profits arising out of the 



67 

contracts ; but certainly, after an acquiescence of twenty- 
five years, he is forever precluded from setting up any claim 
under tliem ; and in the tripartite agreement before 
mentioned, he released all present and future claims. 
This remark is made to dispel any apprehensions of any 
claim by Mr. Yates. 

On this settlement of August 1, 1828, there was found a ~„ 
balance due from Yates and Mclntyre, of. . $137,383 89 
For which 24 notes were given, payable at 
different times with interest. (P. 177 ac- 
countant's report.) 
There was due to the college, on the 8| per 

cent, upon the scheme price, 4,314 06 

Leaving as profit, over and above the 
amount agreed to be paid by the original 331 

contracts, $133,068 23 

Adding the interest to the times of payment, 33 ,788 56 

Made the sum to be divided between the 

college and Dr. Nott, $166,856 79 

All the notes were made payable to E. Nott, 

and were delivered to him, and carrying 

out the spirit of the propositions in rela- 332 

tion to the respective responsibilities of 

the college and himself, he divided to 

Union College, $95,165 09 

To E. Nott, 71,691 70 

166,856 79 

And in this he did himself great injustice. The propor- 
tions of responsibilities assumed by the parties respectively, 
as stated by the treasurer, and above quoted, would have 
given Dr. Nott a much larger sum. But in this, as in 
every instance, he evinced his devotion to the interests of 
the college. 

And even the amount retained by him, has not been ap- 
plied to any personal purpose, but spent in the improve- 
ment of the property purchased and held for the college. 

The college is entirely concluded by its own acts on the 

334 



335 



336 



337 



339 



subject. The Trustees, by an express resolution, (Doc. 
XLI) adopted the recommendation in the report of Messrs. 
Cushrnan and Dix, (Doc. XXIV, folio 195,) that a settle- 
ment should be made with Dr. Nott, "based on a division 
between him and the college of the said additional amounts 
so received under such several stipulations, pro rata, ac- 
cording to services rendered, moneys advanced, and re- 
sponsibilities assumed by each," and that the Treasurer, 
with the approbation of the other members of the finance 
committee, be directed to consummate such settlement." 

In pursuance of this authority, the treasurer stated the 
pro rata on which the settlement should be made, and this 
was approved by the other members of the finance com- 
mittee, Messrs. Cushrnan and Flagg. (Doc. XXV.) Mr. 
Flagg's testimony, folio 310 of Doc's. 

Being thus empowered, the treasurer and Dr. Nott made 
the settlement and distribution of the 24 notes, and the 
portion taken by the college was duly entered on its books, 
and used and applied to the purposes of the college. How 
can a settlement thus deliberately made under the autho- 
rity of the Trustees, and fully executed by their officers, 
and of the fruits of which it has availed itself — how can it 
be disturbed, especially after such a lapse of time'? 

There never has been, and there cannot be, any allega- 
tion of fraud, misrepresentation, or even ignorance, on the 
part of the Trustees. They must have known, and were 
bound to know, that the money was in their treasury, and 
how it came there. 

The Trustees never did question it, or express the least 
dissatisfaction with it. Mr. Flagg says in his testimony, 
(folios 309, 310, Doc's.) that this percentage was conceded 
by the Trustees to belong to Dr. Nott, and was never 
claimed by them ; and this is confirmed by Gen. Dix, at 
folio 292, Doc's. 

This argument of the college being precluded by its own 
acts from now advancing any claim for these 22 notes, is 
not a mere technical one. It is founded in the purest jus- 
tice and the highest morality. The condition of the par- 
ties is changed, in consequence of the settlement. The 



69 

money retained, has been expended on the identical pro- 
perty bestowed on the college, so that if the charge were 
made against Dr. Nott for these notes, common justice 
would require that the amount so charged should be de- 
ducted and retained out of the property whose value has 
been enhanced by the application of the amount charged. 

I maintain, however, that if the question were entirely o±q 
open, no impartial tribunal on a consideration of the terms 
of the propositions of January 4, and 24, of 1826, and of 
the consideration actually rendered by Dr. Nott, would 
hesitate to award him much more than the amount of the 
22 notes. 

One of the grounds on which the accountant places his 
charge of these notes against Dr. Nott, is that by the bill 
in Chancery, filed by Yates & Mclntyre, against Union Col- g^j 
lege and Dr. Nott ; they allege that all the notes given by 
them (with certain exceptions that do not aifect these 
notes) were paid by them to Union College, and that this 
is admitted by the answer. The averments in the bill 
are simply that the notes have been paid ; (see folio 29 to 
31.) And the answer admits that they have been paid at 
the limes stated in the bill, but says nothing in respect to 
the parties or persons to whom the payments were made. 340 

It was not a point of controversy in that suit, to which 
of the defendants the notes had been paid. The trustees 
of the college and Dr. Nott were joined as defendants and 
confederates, and the bill prayed relief against both. A 
payment to one was a payment to both; and in no way de- 
termined their rights as between each other. With these 
Yates & Mclntyre had nothing to do, nor had the suit any 
bearing upon them ; and the answer was not intended to 343 
embrace that question. But conceding, for the sake of the 
argument, that the payments were made to the treasurer 
of Union College, and are so admitted in the answer, it 
has not the least bearing upon their accounts as between 
themselves. It was a joint fund, and either might receive 
it, subject to an account and settlement. And payments 
to the treasurer were equally available to Dr. Nott, as if 



346 



7® 

made to himself; or if made to Dr. Nott, they would come 
into his account with the college. 

The accountant declares that he utterly rejects the books 
of the college and their entries, in respect to the settle- 
ment of 1828, and depends wholly on the bill in chancery 
of Yates & Mclntyre, and the admissions in the answers. 
„ . * This is a strange proceeding for one wiio has made a vol- 
untary oath at the end of his statements, that u the fore- 
going accounts have been carefully prepared by him from 
the books of account and fund books of the said college 
as they were when delivered to him, and from vouchers 
therein referred to." (Page 190, of his report.) The bill 
and answer to which he refers, are no where referred to in 
the books of the college, as vouchers or otherwise. 

But he does not adhere to his own rule. Thus, in the 
bill, Yates and Mclntyre claim that the bond and mort- 
gage of J. B. Yates, for $55,000, included in that settle- 
ment of 1828, was not a payment, but was collateral secu- 
rity for their notes, (folio 26, p. 9, of bill.) Of course, 
it should be deducted from the amount then paid. 

They allege (folio 89, p. 21,) that the settlement of 
1828 was entirely erroneous, and did not conform to the 
agreements between the parties ; and yet the accountant 
makes this settlement the basis of his charge. 

They allege (at folio 32, p. 4,) that the payments they 
have made under i;he agreements in relation to the lottery, 
exceed $534,000, exclusive of interest; and yet the ac- 
countant takes the sum of $433,000. 

Numerous other instances might be pointed out, but 
these are sufficient. 

Another ground of the accountant is the most extraor- 
3 * 8 dinary presented in this investigation. He labors to over- 
turn the official decision of Comptroller Savage, the alle- 
gations in the bill of Yates & Mclntyre, and their settle- 
ment with Union College, in respect to the amount autho- 
rised to be drawn by the Literature lottery, and having, as 
he supposes, made this amount unlimited and indefinite, he 
claims that the 22 notes were a part of it, and therefore 
belong to the college. To accomplish this herculean task, 
he begins by asserting that the $12,000 granted to the His- 



347 



349 



71 

torical Society, was not included in Comptroller Savage's 
decision of the amount of $322,256.81 to be raised for all 
the institutions. The production of the detailed statement 
of the amounts authorised to be raised by the lottery, in 
schedule E. annexed to Yates & Mclntyre's bill, in which 
the grant to the Historical Society is included, and making 
the total less than that fixed by the Comptroller, seemed o^* 
to put this assumption at rest, and to silence the account- 
ant on this point. 

He then seeks to give a construction to the fifth section 
of the act of 1822, (folio 10, 11, of Doc's) by which he 
says the amount to be raised, was indefinitely extended. 
That section relates exclusively to the average amount of 
tickets at their scheme price, that may be sold and drawn 
annually, and has nothing to do with the gross amount, o&i 
That was provided for in the first section of the act, direct- 
ing the Comptroller to ascertain and certify a limited time 
within which the lottery should be drawn and closed, 
which time was to be less than that within which monies 
had theretofore been raised by lottery by the State managers. 
This time could not be ascertained without first determin- 
ing the whole amount to be raised, because it was a pro- 
portional question of time and amount. This the Comp^ 
troller did. I need not say to you that it is contrary to 
all rule and all reason to strain one section of a statute so 
as to make it contradict a previous one, especially where 
the subject matters of the two are entirely diiferent. 

It is not the least of the accountant's difficulties, that 
his construction of the act is directly contrary to that of 
the Attorney General Bronson, in his report to the Assem- 
bly in 1833. (See Doc. XXVI). He overrules both the 
Comptroller and the Attorney General. This assumption ^ 3 
is so preposterous, that there can be no occasion for further 
remark upon it. 

The accountant, in his argument as counsel, refers to 
passages in the joint answer of the Trustees and Dr. Nott, 
to the amended bill of Yates & Mclntyre, which he thinks 
are inconsistent with the idea that any part of the 24 notes 
taken on the settlement on account of the stipulations of 354 



352 



356 



72 

January 4 and 24, 1826, belonged to Br. Nott. Thus at 
p. 26 of that answer, it is said that Dr. Nott had ample 
authority to enter into those stipulations, under the origi- 
nal resolution, committing the whole control of the lottery 
to him ; and the accountant therefore infers that Dr. Nott 
acted only as an agent of the college. The bill had al- 

okk leged (p. 14) that those agreements were not obligatory, 
because they had not been made under any authority de- 
rived from the Trustees, &c. The passage quoted from the 
answer, is in answer to that charge, and merely affirms the 
authority, and points to its source. A portion of these 
agreements was undoubtedly made solely as agent, namely, 
that portion which related to the mixing of the tickets of 
the Literature lottery with the Albany and Fever Hospital 
lotteries. But there was another portion of them that re- 
lated to the procuring of pecuniary aid for Yates & Mcln- 
tyre by Dr. Nott. In respect to this he acted individually, 
and the promise of Y. & Mel. was made to him personally, 
and so acknowledged by them in the settlement of 1828, as 
already shown. The passage quoted from the answer had 
no reference to the respective interests of the college and 
Dr. Nott, but related exclusively to his authority to act 
in the premises at all. 

The accountant also refers to a passage at p. 27 of the 
answer, where it is said : " And these defendants further 
answering, admit that they have pretended and still insist 
that they became entitled to the eleven per centum on the 
diferences between the two sums in that behalf stated, on 
account of a stipulation between them and Y. & McL, as 
hereinbefore stated." The accountant overlooked the cir- 
cumstance that this was a joint answer by the Trustees 
and Dr. Nott, and that when the answer says " these de- 
fendants" it means both. This, therefore, so far from be- 
ing evidence of an admission that the college alone was 
entitled to this eleven per centum, is evidence that it was 
claimed as belonging to both, it and Dr. Nott, as we have 
always maintained, and as the proceeds were ultimately 
divided. 

Q 59 The accountant also refers to passages in the upper part 



357 



358 



73 

of p. 26 of the answer, as containing admissions that the 
Trustees were parties to the agreement of January, 1826, 
and that the Trustees had a legal and valid right to the 
eleven per centum. Here the accountant has entirely 
mistaken the subject of that part of the answer. Y. & 
Mel. had in their bill (pp. 19, 20,) alleged that the sum of 
$2,004,099 of tickets which was stated in the agreement of 
1826 as being the amount yet to be drawn for Union Col- 
lege, was erroneous, and that the expression in reference 
to it in the agreement was " incorrect and unfounded in 
fact." 

The answer, beginning at the foot of page 35, answers 
this allegation, and all that follows and to which the ac- 
countant refers, relates exclusively to the amount on which 
the eleven per centum was to be calculated ; affirming that 
the sum was correctly stated in the agreement, and had no 
relation whatever to the eleven per centum itself. 

It is very probable that in such a long answer, loose and 
general expressions may be found, which do not always 
discriminate the respective rights of the two sets of defend- 
ants. But this answer, like every other paper, is to be 
read as a whole, and where discriminations are once made 
or a fact is once stated with precision, the omission to re- 
peat it exactly in other parts, is not to be regarded either 
as a contradiction or as an admission contrary to the more 
precise statement. 

The idea has been thrown out, that all these contracts 
and arrangements were made by Dr* Nott in his official 
character, as president and as agent for Union College 
and that therefore the profits and benefits accruing from 
them, resulted to his principal, the college. 

In the first place, the fact is otherwise. It has already 
been abundantly shown that a consideration and moving 
cause in each case was the personal services, the hazards 
encountered, and the responsibilities assumed, and ad- 
vances made personally and individually by him, and that 
the college in its corporate capacity was not in a condition 
to render any effectual service or aid, without collateral 
guarantees of Dr. Nott. 

10* 



360 



361 



362 



363 



364 



74 

In the second place, the rule which gives to the princi- 
pal the profits of an agent, applies only to the cases where 
the agent deals with the property of the principal, and by 
using it makes a profit. It would be absurd to say that 
Union College was entitled to any advantages one of its 
officers might gain by dealing with his own property, or 

365 rendering his own personal services, or his personal 
responsibilities. It has been shown that Union College had 
not and could not have any legal interest in the fund for 
management and supervision, other than that given by Dr. 
Nott. And it has also been shown that the profits made 
under the stipulation of January 4, 1826, were at least in 
part for the personal services and responsibilities of Dr. 
Nott. And accordingly, the college has treated with the 

366 supposed agent, as acting for himself, and not as agent, in 
respect to that part. There is no principle which requires 
a man receiving a salary to account to the party paying it, 
for the profits of any other business in which he may en- 
gage. The remedy for a waste of time is to dismiss the 
officer, or to deduct from his salary a rateable sum for the 
time lost. 

It will hardly be alleged that the pecuniary interests of 
the college suffered by any appropriation of the time of 
its president to the supervision of the lottery, and to the 
sustaining the credit of the contractors, by which the lat- 
ter were enabled to fulfil their obligations to the college, 
and which they never could have done without such aid. 
On the contrary, it must be gratifying to the trustees and 
friends of the college, to find, after so much labor and 
hazard and censure, that while the literature lottery, un- 
der the management of officers appointed by the State, had 
not, at the expiration of nine years, produced enough even 
to pay the interest on the grants for which it was author- 
ised, and which, in the judgment of the sagacious Comp- 
troller, Savage, was not likely to fulfil its purpose in less 
than eleven years more, it has, under private management 
in five years satisfied all the grants it was created to raise, 
and been finally closed. It would really seem as if some- 
thing beside obloquy and reproach in private, and in pub- 



367 



36& 



75 

lie legislative enquiries and reports, instigated and made 
by strangers to the institution; it would seem as if some- 
thing beside these was due to the individual whose energy, 
perseverance and ability had saved the contractors from 
ruin, and enabled them to pay their obligations to the 
college. That the reputation of the college, as a seminary 

of learning, has not suffered by anv misapplication of the 

" ^70 

time of the president to its pecuniary affairs, is quite evi- 
dent from the regular and constant increase of the pupils 
during the period of the president's being thus employed, 
and since. 

I think you will be satisfied that the three principal 
items which have been discussed, the $150,000 bond, the 
president's fund, and the twenty-two notes of Yates and Mc- 
Intyre, (part of the twenty-four given by them,) did be- 
long to Dr. Nott individually ; and that the corporation of 
Union College never can assert, as it never has asserted, 
any claim to them or either of them. I say nothing about 
the bar of the statute of limitations, which would indeed 
be sufficient, but I rely on the facts and circumstances ex- 
hibiting the equity of Dr. Nott's claim, and on the formal 
and deliberate settlements and acts of the trustees with 
him, and their acquiescence in and confirmation of those 
acts. 

How can strangers, the State, or any one else, set up 
claims thus extinguished, and demand an incredible 
amount as being due to the college on account of them? 
Is it not preposterous on its face ? 

The accountant has utterly misconceived his duty. He 
was to examine the books of the college for ascertained 
facts, and to state the results. He had no authority to go 
beyond those books, and to fabricate claims and accounts 
which the trustees never made. 

And how, gentlemen, can you entertain jurisdiction of 
these claims? For what purpose, to what end? You 
cannot award the amounts of them to Union College. 

It would seem indeed, that the addition made to the re- 
solution for your appointment on the motion of Mr. 
Beekman, and to which the Senate assented probably to 374 



372 



373 



76 

terminate his importunities and a long discussion, pro- 
vides for your reporting to the Attorney-General. That 
officer is an ex-officio trustee of the college, and one would 
suppose could make his own enquiries, without a commit- 
tee of the Senate becoming his scavengers. When the re- 
port comes to him, what is he to do 1 As to disturbing 

375 the arrangements made with Br. Nott in good faith, and 
overturning the conclusive acts of the parties, he can no 
more accomplish it than the trustees themselves. As to 
proceeding against the present trustees for the acts of their 
predecessors, even if they had been fraudulent, which no 
one pretends, it is too absurd to be attempted. 

The only practical effect of the enquiry, is, therefore, to 
ascertain whether the funds granted by the State have 

37 6 been faithfully applied, and whether the permanent funds 
are safely invested. Beyond these objects, the result of 
your enquiries can only affect the personal character of Dr. 
Nott. 

The fourth enquiry contemplated by the resolution for 
your appointment is whether any losses have occurred in 
the management of the college, and the causes of such 
losses % 

3 77 The accountant in schedule No. 6, p. 67, gives a list of 
losses amounting to $44,727. 14, as having occurred during 
a period of 56 years! in the concerns of an institution, 
whose receipts have amounted to $4,469,915.34, as exhib- 
ited by him, page 56 ; about one dollar on a hundred. 
And of this amount, losses of $40,197 were upon stocks in 
banks to which the college had been invited to subscribe 
by acts of the legislature. Considering the great induce- 

378 ments to such investments by institutions that do not de- 
sire to speculate on their sale, and the great revolutions in 
trade, commerce, and all money transactions, particularly 
banking operations, during the last fifty years, the wonder 
is, not that there should have been such losses, but that 
they were not of greater magnitude. 

Under the head of losses, may be classed the invest- 
ments which the accountant has so strangely charged to 
o 79 the account of Dr. Nott. 



77 

At pages 83, 84, the accountant charges to Dr. Nott 
$55,641 .92, the amount with interest of certain investments 
there specified. He finds no such charges in the books of 
the college, but undertakes arbitrarily upon his own dis- 
cretion to make them. And he seeks to justify his unau- 
thorized decision, by appending a resolution of the Board of 
Trustees of the college in 1831, directing on what security qqq 
loans shall be made, and that they should be sanctioned by 
the finance committee. He does not question the fact that 
they were so sanctioned ; but he assumes the office of a 
judge, and undertakes to decide that at the several times 
when the loans were made, they were not upon unincum- 
bered real estate worth double the value of the moneys 
loaned, exclusive of buildings. He had no evidence ex- 
cept the -present value of the property mortgaged, and that <, Q1 
the investments have proved to be losses ! He assumes 
that the finance committee abused the discretion vested in 
them, and thereupon charges the losses, not to the members 
of the committee who participted in the loans, but to one 
of them ! 

It is scarcely necessary to say to this committee, that the 
circumstances which shall render a private trustee respon- 
sible for a breach of trust, and the extent of that responsi- 
bility, present questions of great difficulty and delicacy to 
courts of equity, and require a very thorough examination 
and a recurrence to principles of considerable complexity; 
and yet here is a man who assumes all these functions of a 
court, and in the absence of the party charged, and without 
a particle of evidence, except the mere fact of the invest- 
ments turning out to be bad or questionable, at once charges 
honorable and distinguished men with culpable neglect, 
and proposes to punish them by holding one of them re- 
sponsible for the result! You know very well that such 
responsibility cannot be incurred by a trustee or director 
of a public corporation, without culpable neglect or inten- 
tional fraud, one or the other of which is therefore imputed 
by the very fact of charging the supposed loss. 2 John. 
Ch. 389 ; 3 Paige 231 ; 5 Paige 612. 

All that is necessary to say on this subject is, that the 384 



382 



383 



78 

presumption that these investments were made in good 
faith, and in the exercise of a sound discretion upon an 
honest estimate of the value of the property mortgaged, 
exists and is conclusive until the contrary is shown. No 
evidence of the kind has been or can be adduced. 

The accountant, has, as usual, a strange theory on this 

o fir subject. He says, as counsel, that Dr. Nott is chargea- 
ble personally, because he received the avails of these 
investments ! A man who assigns securities to another, 
without fraud, and without any guaranty of the value 
of the securities, or the responsibility of the parties to 
them, is, according to this new law, to be charged with the 
amount of theni, if at any time they prove worthless ! And 
this, without any enquiry as to the diligence of the assignees, 

ogg or as to notice to him. I think you will regard this law, 
as of the same quality with that we have so often had ex- 
pounded from the same quarter. 

With respect to one of these investments, that in the 
bond and mortgage of Edward James, for $14,000 ; it is 
proved, beyond all question, by Mr. James himself, (see 
folio 339 to 340, and 344 of Doc's,) that they were given 
to secure his debt to H. Nott & Co., who authorised them 

qq» to be made directly to E. Nott, and guaranteed the pay- 
ment, as was just and proper ; and that it was provided 
for by their assignment, and paid by their assignees, and 
its receipt acknowledged by the Treasurer. This testimony 
was fully corroborated by B. Nott, one of the firm of H. 
Nott & Co. It is impossible for the accountant to make 
Dr. Nott chargeable with the amount of this security, and 
the enormous amount of $15,383.03 interest on it, as he 

388 does at p. 113 and 83, as a bad investment, by assuming 
that Dr. Nott is responsible for certain notes of Stratton 
and Seymour, delivered to him. When such a distinct 
charge is made, in a tangible shape, it will be time to 
attend to it. But it can not destroy the fact, that the bond 
and mortgage are paid, and are not chargeable to any one. 
How they have been retained by tie college, and consid- 
ered a part of their assets, may be explained by the con- 

389 fusion arising from the death of Jonas Holland, the Treasu- 



79 

rer, and by the fact that they were regarded as worthless, 
and not of sufficient importance to inquire about. But it 
is not seen how this course of the college officers can re- 
vive or make them chargeable to Dr. Nott. 

The note of John A. Yates, which the accountant regards 
as a loss, and also charges to Dr. Nott, was given for an 
advance made to him while he was a professor, to enable qqq 
him to visit Europe, and having been made by Dr. Nott, in 
behalf of the college, the note was endorsed by him to vest 
the title to it in the college. The Trustees assumed it, in 
the hope of securing its payment out of the salary of the 
professor. A payment in that way of $168.05 seems to 
have been made on it, (accountant's report, p. 129.) The 
college never charged Dr. Nott as endorser, and the trea- 
surer testifies that he did not charge him, because, under 391 
the circumstances^ it ought not to be done. The account- 
ant, however, in his argument, admitted that this charge 
ought not to be made against Dr. Nott ; and he also admit- 
ted that the bond of B. Nott ought not to be charged as it 
had been, because he could not trace any agency of Dr. 
Nott in the exchange of another security for it. 

These are all the items that can be called losses. The 
first set, at p. 67 of accountant's statement, 392 

amount to c . . $44,727 14 

The second set of bad investments, (pp. 83, 

84,) amount to, 55,641 92 

Making a total of, $100,369 06 



393 



It appears from the report of the treasurer, January 1, 
1853, and by the report of the auditing committee, (Doc's. 
XXXV, XXXVI,) that the college has gained, in the pur- 
chase of property by Dr. Nott, out of his own means, and 
which was charged by him at cost, $118,930.45. Besides 
this large gain, it appears from the testimony of the trea- 
surer (Doc. XL VI, folio 426,) that the college has derived 
large pecuniary profits from the purchase of the rights of 
the other institutions in the lottery, which was accom- 
plished by the advance of Dr. Nott's private means ; and 394 



m 

that he had expended considerable sums, gratuitously, on 
the improvements of the college grounds and buildings 5 
so that, as the treasurer testifies, if all the losses on loans 
and bad debts, debited to Dr. Nott by the accountant, were 
charged to him, and he were credited with the gains that 
have enured to the college from the use of his private 

395 funds, he would, on a final settlement, be found a creditor 
of the college to a large amount. 

In the broad, equitable view, which I am persuaded you 
will take, of the dealings between the college and its Presi- 
dent, it is most apparent that a cruel injustice would be 
committed in charging the losses and bad debts to Dr. 
Nott individually, whatever may have been his relations 
to any of them. 

396 The 5th inquiry directed by the resolution is, whether 
the President or any other officer has, while in the employ- 
ment of the college, participated individually in the profits 
of any lotteries which were appropriated to Union College r ( 

So far as the President is concerned in this inquiry, it 
has already been answered in relation to the only matters 
that Mr. Vanderheyden has ventured to specify, viz, the 
President's fund and the 22 notes of Yates & Mclntyre. 

397 It has been shown that these Were not profits of lotteries 
appropriated to Union College by the acts granting lotte- 
ries; that the President's fund and the profits arising 
from the proposition of January 4, 1826, were wholly in- 
dependent of the grants to the institutions ; that it was 
not entitled by the act of 1822 to the President's fund, and 
that the second item arose from a personal contract with 
Dr. Nott. 

398 Having now finished the answers to 4 the specific en- 
quiries, I propose to consider the account stated at p. 81 
of the accountant's report, between Union College and Dr. 
Nott, wherein he is made a debtor to the college in the 
enormous sum of $885, 789.62. 

That such a debt should exist without the knowledge 
or suspicion of the Trustees, very many of whom were fa- 
miliar with the affairs of the college, is one of the marvels 

399 j n book-keeping, calculated to astonish every one. That 



81 

this is a fabricated, forced and utterly unfounded account, 
I now proceed to show. 

It commences with what he calls loans to Dr. Nott, 
a misnomer which a member of the committee has noticed. 
The accountant gives that name to any charge or series of 
charges he has been able to rake up out of the rubbish of 
years, for what he considers mis-payments or over-pay- ^qq 
ments, and to temporary transactions where the President, 
in order to save for the college the greatest amount of in- 
terest, took any considerable sum that was in the Trea- 
surer's hands, for which he gave his own obligations, and 
then deposited it with houses of the first character, to 
be repaid at call or on demand, at 7 per cent interest, until 
they could be permanently invested, always leaving col- 
lateral security. What is called loan No. 1, $1,564.42 401 
principal, is for cash paid Dr. Nott July 18, 1807, very nearly 
50 years ago ! Of course an explanation of such a charge 
is next to impossible. Common experience, as well as the 
law, assumes that an individual or a corporation, who will 
omit to make a claim until all evidence on the subject is 
presumed to be lost, has no right to the claim. This is a 
sufficient answer to the charge. But we think we have 
shown you that the President had claims for allowances 402 
for fuel, lights, repairs, &c., and that he made advances to 
the college on general account from time to time. The 
present Treasurer says, that it is evident from the books 
that the college had no money to lend on a long credit, 
and that if an account was opened for the different ad- 
vances made by Dr. Nott, and this and other items of a 
like character were charged to him, he would be a creditor 
of the college to a large amount. (Folio 429.) All these 403 
considerations show the impropriety of this charge. 

The next,'called loan No. 2, is a principal sum of $15,- 
006.01, consisting of payments made to Dr. Nott between 
July 1, 1826, and August 31, 1829, as entered on the 
books of the college, as payments for u interest on money 
borrowed," and for "interest;" on their face, they are pay- 
ments ot debts due. But the accountant denied that there 
was any interest due by the college on any loans made to 404 



11 



82 

it, which was not paid otherwise and so entered on the 
college books. On the contrary, we have shown from the 
copies of accounts in the Mohawk Bank produced by the 
accountant, that there was interest due from the college to 
that bank, on the balances of accounts against the college, 
stated every six months, part only of which was paid by 
4Qg the college ; and that the residue unpaid, amounted in all 
the cases but one or two, to the precise sums entered as hav- 
ing been paid to Dr. Nott for interest. (See Mr. Pearson's 
testimony, Doc. XL VII, and his statement.) We maintain 
that neither the college, nor any one for them, can at this 
day be permitted to contradict their own entries ; and that 
if permitted, the burthen is on them, not on us, to estab- 
lish a clear and manifest error- And we say, that so far 

406 from establishing any error in the payment of this interest, 
the evidence strongly corroborates the entries. 

Loans 3 and 4 are paid and balanced, and nothing is 
claimed for them by the accountant. 

On loan No. 5, the interest only is claimed. 

The items of the account, as stated at p. 1 97, comprise 
various advances at different times ; some of them to Dr. 
Nott, as chairman of the finance committee in 1835, 1836, 

407 1837, and 1838, but no interest appears to have been charged 
on either side. Dr. Nott is unable to explain why it was 
not charged, otherwise than that the nature of the trans- 
actions was such, that in the opinion of Jonas Holland, the 
Treasurer, who was a faithful and vigilant officer, no in- 
terest should be charged, or it certainly would have been. 
Where so many sums of money have been received and 
paid by the parties, it depends on the selection of the items, 

408 whether the payments are cotemporaneous or nearly so, 
with the receipts. It has been difficult to discover the 
rule adopted by the accountant, and we are unable to say 
whether a different classification ought to be made, or 
whether it would produce a different result as to the in- 
terest. But we suppose it a sufficient answer to the charge, 
that after such a lapse of time as 15 years, the just 
as well as legal presumption is, that it ought not to have 

409 been charged. The rule of law, as well as of equity is, 



that where the principal debt is satisfied, interest cannot 
be claimed, unless there is an express agreement to pay it. 
13 Wend. 639 ; 15 do. 76; 11 Paige, 42. 

The 6th, is also a claim for $1,160.79 of interest upon 
a very long account, commencing at p. 102, and occupy- 
ing four pages, and part of another. The same remarks 
are aplicable to this, as to the last preceding one. 41 q 

What are called loans 7 and 8, are balanced, and noth- 
ing is claimed. 

Loan No. 9, was an apparent balance of $12,000 princi- 
pal, and $1,343.80 interest. A mortgage had been placed 
in the Treasurer's hands, as Mr. Pearson testifies, to the 
amount, but was withdrawn, on account of some objections 
as to the property being free from incumbrances, in order to 
substitute another, for which purpose the account was left 4,, 
open. The acting Treasurer says, the security has been 
replaced, and the interest paid. 

The next is loan No. 10, or the special loan, p. 112, 
principal $6,720, and interest $433.78. The acting treasu- 
rer testified that this was an open and running account, 
that fluctuated from time to time, the balances varying on 
each side, and on the 1st of January, 1853, happened to 
be as stated ; but that since that time, to which the ac- 412 
countant's report was made up, the balance has been paid, 
and that it was in Dr. Nott's favor when he testified. 

The next item, the amount of the 22 notes of Yates & 
Mclntyre, amounting with interest to $180,547,28, has al- 
ready been fully discussed, and the injustice of charging 
Dr. Nott, with those notes, has been fully exposed. 

The next item is the balance of the principal of the 
President's fund, after crediting the $42,000 paid, but not 413 
crediting any expenses arising from the supervision and 
management of the lotteries, amounting to $80,798.84, and 
the interest, $151,740.63, making a grand total of $232,- 
539.47. This, also, has already been disposed of. 

The next item, is a charge for 305 shares of Albany 
Commercial Bank stock, principal $6,786.25, and amount- 
ing with interest to $16,601.37. 

The documentary proof herewith presented, (Doc. 414 



84 

XXVII, folio 265,) and the testimony of Edward James, and 
Benjamin Nott, establish, beyond question, that this stock 
was loaned to Howard Nott, & Co., that it was assigned as 
collateral security, for a debt that was afterwards paid 
and surrendered to H. Nott, & Co., and they sold it in 
parcels to several persons. That on their failure they 

425 executed an assignment of their property, specially 
providing for the payment of their liabilities to Union 
College, and for the liabilities of E. Nott, on their 
account; and that the assignees paid to the treasurer 
of Union College, $78,214 27, in full, of all claims and 
demands of the college against Howard Nott, & Co., 
and the treasurer gave a full and general receipt and 
discharge of the claims of the college against them, and 

aiq against E. Nott, for advances to them through him. Mr. 
James is positive that the price of this stock was included 
in the sum paid by the assignees, and Benjamin Nott cor- 
roborated him. It stood in Dr. Nott's name, and was trans- 
ferred by him directly to the company that loaned money 
upon it, instead of passing through H. Nott, & Co. The 
accountant seemed to have had great difficulty in under- 
standing how the stock could belong to the college, or af- 

417 terwards to H. Nott, & Co, without a regular transfer of it 
appearing on the books of the bank. Few will entertain 
the same difficulty; at all events, it is certain the college 
has received the price of this stock ; and if it did not own 
it, it should account to Dr. Nott for it, instead of his being 
charged for it. 

The attempt of the accountant to revive this charge, af- 
ter it had thus been effectually disposed of, evinces both 

410 his tenacity and his perverseness. He admits it was paid, 
as proved, but claims that inasmuch as certain notes of 
Stratton and Seymour, were returned to Dr. Nott, to an 
amount much more than the price of this stock, and which 
notes he says are not accounted for, therefore he ought 
still to be charged with the stock. Now, we suppose, that 
if the stock is paid for, there is an end of this charge at 
least. And when any charge for the notes is made, we 
will meet it. 



4}9 



85 

The next item consists of the bad investments which the 
accountant in the exercise of the plenary powers of a 
court of equity, has charged to one of the officers of the 
corporation who made them. These have already been 
discussed, and I hope satisfactorily disposed of. 

The next item is the charge of $8,657.91 for Hallet Cove 
and Williamsburgh Turnpike stock. 4 oq 

This stock was subscribed for by the college in 1839 and 
1840, while the property to be benefited by the turnpike 
•belonged to the college. (See p. 134 accountant's report.) 
The authority for the subscription, by the trustees of the 
college, was produced before the committee in the original 
minutes of the board. How Dr. Nott is to be responsible 
for this purchase of stock by the Trustees, more than any 
other member of the board, surpasses comprehension. The 401 
accountant himself is so convinced of the injustice of this 
charge, that he abandons it. 

The next items are the charges for the Hunter Point land 
and the Stuy vesant Cove property. Here, too, the account- 
ant has assumed judicial powers, and undertaken to set 
aside transactions deliberately made and sanctioned by the 
board. (Doc. XXX, folio 223.) 

The accountant seems, from his statement, (p. 133) to 422 
consider the re-conveyance of the half of the Hunter farm 
by Union College to Dr. Nott, in 1845, after having pur- 
chased it from him in 1838, seven years previous, as re- 
storing the parties to their original condition, and therefore 
charges the interest on the consideration from 1838, instead 
of charging it from the time of the conveyance by the col- 
lege. And for the same reason, he charges interest on the 
original consideration paid by the college for the half of 423 
the Stuyvesant Cove property, $58,632.15 from 1838, when 
the college bought it. 

Now, it is not denied that Dr. Nott is accountable for 
the consideration money for the purchase of these tracts ; 
but we contend that interest should be charged only from 
the time the title vested in him. And in relation to the Stuy- 
vesant Cove property we say, that he should be charged 424 



425 



86 

the consideration for the whole, which was actually con- 
veyed to him, not for the half only, with interest from the 
time of the conveyance. This makes the amount charge- 
able to Dr. Nott, for both the tracts, $348,447.78, while 
the accountant's charges amount to $306,034.81 for the 
same lands, a difference of $42,412.97 against Dr. Nott. 
But it is submitted that this is the only legal and correct 
mode. 

An issue has been got up in relation to these tracts, 
which is entirely collateral to the accounts, and will there- 
fore be postponed for the present ; with the single remark, 
that these lands were paid for by Dr. Nott, by offsetting 
the price of them against the same amount of monies in the 
treasurer's hands belonging to him ; and that as those mo- 
nies were always intended as donations to the college, and 
4*6 the lands are given to it, it was merely a change of the 
form of the donations, converting the money into land, and 
that therefore it is quite immaterial what price was allow- 
ed the college, so long as it did not exceed the amount of 
monies deposited with the treasurer. 

The last item is a charge for mortgages, taxes, assess- 
ments and rents on the Cove property, $25,623.92, and in- 
terest to Jan'y 1 , 1853, $27,637.47, the particulars of which 

427 are given at p. 135, 136, &c, of the accountant's state- 
ment. 

These rents, taxes and assessments, were charges on the 
property while it belonged to the college. See the dates 
of them in the statement 23, p. 135, &c. 

It is inconceivable why they should be charged to Dr. 
Nott. He purchased the property subsequent to the ac- 
cruing of these charges. 

428 When was it ever before heard of, that the vendor of 
land charged the purchaser with the taxes and assessments 
on it, which he had paid previous to the sale ? 

With regard to the mortgage on this property, at the 
foot of p. 137, and top of 138, is the following entry: 
" Cash paid on a mortgage on the Stuy vesant Cove proper- 
ty, sold to Dr. Nott, on condition that said mortgage be 
paid. The amount now due, given to Dr. Nott, and the 

429 college released from their obligation to cancel said mort- 



87 

gage," $6,058.02. This entry is contradictory and unin- 
telligible, unless it means that the college was in some way 
originally under obligations to pay this mortgage, and 
having paid the balance of the principal due, $6,000 and 
the interest, it was released from that obligation. Of 
course, Dr. Nott is not chargeable with it. 

At p. 138, he enters as a credit, 23 shares of stock in the ^q 
Poudrette company, received on account of rent, $2,300. 
But he says as it was valueless, its credit is withheld. Of 
course, the withholding it, increases just so much the 
charge against Dr. Nott. 

By what authority does he withhold this credit, and 
thus charge Dr. Nott a loss occasioned by the college re- 
ceiving in payment of its debts, a worthless stock ? It is 
evidently erroneous. 431 

Having thus examined each item on the Dr. side of this 
account, it will be seen, that with the exception of the Hun- 
ter farm and Stuyvesant Cove, and the loans 9 and 10, there 
is not a single correct charge ; and these loans, 9 and 10, 
have been paid since the report was made. It is apparent? 
therefore, that of this monstrous account of 855,000 dol- 
lars there is nothing really chargeable to Dr. Nott, except 
the Hunter farm and Stuyvesant Cove. 432 

Let us now turn to the credit side of this account, and 
notice the remarkable omissions of credits that should be 
there, and which the accountant has arbitrarily rejected. 
- 1st. Neziah Bliss' bond and mortgage, $75,225.32 on in- 
terest, received from Dr. Nott, July 1, 1834. 

This is stated by the accountant, in statement No. 24, p. 
139. But on the Dr. side, the same sum is charged to Dr. 
Nott ; immediately under the charge is a note by the Trea- 433 
surer, Jonas Holland, " that in reality, there was no money 
paid by the Trustees for the said land, but the record was 
made in a way that would not increase the Treasurer's re- 
sponsibility." 

The reason given by Mr. Vanderheyden, on his exami- 
nation as a witness, for not crediting this bond and mort- 
gage to Dr. Nott, was, that the Treasurer, Jonas Holland, 
was an honest man, and would not have charged it to Dr. ™^ 



435 



436 



88 

Nott, unless he thought he ought to be charged ; and that 
the fact of the charge being made, is evidence that the 
bond and mortgage were at the same time returned to Dr. 
Nott, and thus the account was balanced by the debit 
charge. 

The memorandum attached by Mr. Holland, not only 
imports no such thing, but shows the reverse. It does not 
intimate that the securities were returned to Dr. Nott, 
which would have been untrue, as will presently appear, 
but it is made to record the fact, that no consideration was 
paid by the college for them. The Treasurer seems to 
have supposed it necessary to debit the amount, in an ac- 
count between him and the college, to avoid a charge against 
himself of $75,225.32, which would have been the case, 
if not debited. The account made out by Mr. Vanderhey- 
den, at p. 139, is between Dr. Nott and the college, and 
gives to this entry a different character from what it pos- 
sesses in the college books, as an account between the col- 
lege and the Treasurer ; it is made in the Treasurer's cash 
book, he first debiting himself with the bond and mort- 
gage, and then crediting himself with it j and to explain 
this credit to himself, he makes the above memorandum. 
.„ 7 He makes no charge against Dr. Nott. 

This bond and mortgage were received under a resolution 
of the Trustees of July 25, 1837, directing them to be 
taken. (See folio 196, Doc's.) The college received a 
release by Bliss of his equity of redemption in the mort- 
gaged premises, and discharged his bond ; (See Bliss' tes- 
timony and the records,) and the college subsequently 
conveyed the premises to Dr. Nott, for which it is credited 

438 ky nmi 1*75,225, in the consideration for the whole proper- 
ty. It is impossible that any theory of book-keeping can 
exonerate the college from accountability for the value of 
this bond and mortgage, and the perverseness of the ac- 
countant in thus making Mr. Holland's entry mean just 
the reverse of what it was made to express, is not a little re- 
markable. 

2d. There is a credit of $29,430.92, given to Dr. Nott as 

439 principal, and $31,606.67 for interest on it, as the balance 



440 



441 



89 

of the $150,000 bond of Yates, Mclntyre & Ely, after ap- 
propriating the great bulk of it, $120,569.08, to Union 
College. This matter has been so fully discussed, that it 
is unnecessary to dwell on it here. This credit should be 
for the whole amount of the payments made by Yates, 
Mclntyre & Ely, on their bond to the treasurer of Union 
College, and by him received in trust for Dr. Nott. 

T have prepared, and submit herewith, a statement of 
the transactions between the college and Dr. Nott, on the 
above principles. It shows a balance in favor of Dr. Nott, 
more than sufficient to cover the supposed interest due on 
loans 5 and 6, the only items in Mr. Vanderhey den's ac- 
count, which there is the least pretence, unfounded as 
it is, for charging to Dr. Nott, except the Hunter farm and 
Stuyvesant cove property. But there is an item which 
should be charged against Dr. Nctt, of $46,649.85, paid 
him September 21, 1848, and the interest, with which he 
has always charged himself, with some diiference in inter- 
est, but which the accountant has discovered to be chargea- 
ble, only since he made out his report. 

Thus, it will be seen, that the indebtedness made out 
by the accountant against Dr. Nott, of $885,789.69, is in 
fact, not only imaginary, but that the college is indebted 
to him, regarding it as a mere money account between him 
and the college. 

But although in the form of one, it is not a money account. 
It is a condensed view of the donations of Dr. Nott to the 
college, and of the changes of form which they assumed 
when converted into other property. Thus the amount of 
the Bliss bond, and a large portion of the payments on the 
$150,000 bond, are changed into the half of the Hunter 443 
farm and Stuyvesant cove property, which have taken, and 
are to take the same destination as the moneys and secu- 
rity they represent were to take ; that is, they belong in 
fact to the college. The title was taken merely for con- 
venience in the management of the property. The $46,- 
649.85, received and credited by Dr. Nott, has been ex- 
pended, w T ith much more, in the improvements of the real 
estate given to the college. Dr. Nott has never claimed 444 

12* 



442 



90 

payment from the college for any balance of this nominal 
account, but has always considered it the property of the 
college. 

In his report to the trustees for 1833, (Doc. XXXIII, 
folio 241,) he states that the moneys received from Yates 
& Melntyre, under his personal contract with them, al- 

445 though appropriated as he mentioned to the college,, had 
been invested in lands in New-York and on Long Island, 
and in good securities, with the approbation of the finance 
committee. He thus, at that early day, indicated that 
whatever form of investment these profits he destined for 
the college, might take, they were to be and were held as 
the ultimate property of the college. 

It is, therefore, an entirely erroneous view, to regard 

446 these transactions of Dr. Nott with the college, as between 
debtor and creditor. They were, as already said, mere 
changes in the forms of his donations, of which a memo- 
randum was kept, for the sole purpose of being able to 
trace the funds through their different shapes, and to see 
that they were kept entire ; and such is the character of 
the account I now lay before you. 

In the account thus made up by the accountant, are items 
44? of interest amounting to $541,630.59, and after deducting 
the interest allowed Dr. Nott on the $29,430.92, bal- 
ance of the $150,000 bond, and amounting to $31,606.67, 
he makes a balance of interest against Dr. Nott, of $510,- 
023.92. This balance he carries into the revenue account 
of No. 4, p. 60, as part of the assets of the college. It is 
hardly necessary to observe, that as this balance of interest 
is predicated upon principal items which have no existence 
*^ but in the brain of the accountant, it is wholly incorrect, 
and that there is no such sum due the college ; and thus the 
revenue account has no such balance as he states, $432,- 
095.61, or any other balance to carry to the summary No. 
1, p. 6, where he has placed it. 

The accountant has stated that other charges than those 
contained in his report, should be made against Dr. Nott. 

The first is the $46 a 649.85 already mentioned, and with 
449 



91 

which Dr. Nott has always charged himself with some diffe- 
rence of interest. 

The next is $1,500 premium on Farmers' Bank stock, 
which Dr. Nott took at par. All that can be said on this, is 
that the Treasurer testifies (Doc. XLVI, folio 439,) that he 
sold it for the best price he could get, after making inquiries 
respecting its market value, and that its value fluctuated. ±§q 
Mr. Vanderheyden offers himself as a witness on this point, 
and testifies that the stock was, in reality, worth as much in 
1842, as in 1834 ! 

He claims, also, an indefinite sum of about $7,000, for 
excess in payments of salary, of which a statement is given 
at p. 141 to 149. Our answer is, that Dr. Nott had other 
charges against the college for allowances, for fuel, light, 
repairs of dwellings, &c, amounting to more than the 451 
balance claimed, as testified by the Treasurer (Doc. XLVI, 
folio 429). The charge is brought forward at the last mo- 
ment of the sitting of the committee to take testimony, and 
can only be answered as generally as it is made. 

The differences between us and the accountant, respect- 
ing most of the principles of his account, have thus been 
presented. But there is an important principle adopted by 
him, which swells the apparent amount of the property of 452 
the college, as we conceive, most unwarrantably. In his 
revenue account, he has charged for interest received, of 
all kinds, $358,744.62, while the only credits for interest, 
are those paid on loans, $232,500.68. 

The difference, $126,243.94, is thus made an accumula- 
tion of income, when it is notorious, and is shown by the 
accountant himself, that the current expenses exceeded the 
income. The history of the college shows, that it is im- 
possible that there should have been such an accumulation. 
The difference of interest, or large portions of it, must, 
from the history we have of the embarrassments of the 
college, have been applied to the payment of interest on 
ordinary expenses previously incurred, contained in ac- 
counts and contracts, the payments of which would be en- 454 
tered in gross, without separating the interest. 



92 

There does not appear to be any account of interest re- 
ceived or paid previous to 1826, except a single item of 
$3,861.99, paid the State, April 14, 1806, p. 58. The de- 
tailed statement, furnished by the accountant, commences 
in the year 1826. It is in proof that the college was 
much embarrassed previous to that time, and borrowed 
4 p<5 money, besides running in debt otherwise. Much interest 
must have been paid before the account commences. The 
interest account is therefore imperfect. 

It is submitted, that as it is evident from the accountant's 
own exhibit in No. 4, that the current expenses exceeded 
the income, including interest, the balance of that item 
ought not to be brought into the account as capital. 

Various instances have been presented during the inves- 
akq ligation, in which interest and rents received have been 
charged as capital. Many of these are pointed out in a 
paper submitted by me, and prepared for the convenience 
of the committee, containing our objections, in the most 
brief form, to the items in the accountant's summary No. 1. 
These objections are now submitted as a part of this argu- 
ment, and are printed in the documents annexed as Doc. 
XLIX, together with the accountant's summary. The trea- 

457 surer has also prepared a summary of the financial condition 
of the college on the 1st of January last, according to our 
view of the facts, and the principles on which it should be 
made, which is also printed as Doc. L. This has been read 
to you . It contains the substance and essence of this whole 
inquiry. 

We have prepared and now submit an account of receipts 
and disbursements in the only mode which was now practi- 

458 cable. We have adopted the statement No. 3 of the ac- 
countant, except where any item is struck out or amended 
by us ; and we have shown the results of the debits and 
credits where the account is so reformed. 

It seemed idle to copy some 40 or 50 pages of items to 
which no objection was made ; and it seems to us that the 
mode we have adopted is far more convenient for compa- 

459 rison ' 



93 

The results of our account are exhibited in the following 

Recapitulation : 

To be added to the debit side of accountant's 
statement No. 3, $3,750 00 

To be deducted from the de- 
bit side, 861,768 19 

To be added to the credit side, 460 

To be deducted from credit 

side, 828,255 64 

Debit side of accountant's 
statement No. 3, total, $4,469,015 34 

Additions as above, 3,750 00 

$4,472,765 34 

Deductions as above, 861,768 19 

4ol 

Remaining, $3,610,997 15 

Credit side of accountant's statement, total, $4,469,015 34 

Additions as above, 

$4,469,015 34 
Deductions as above, 828,255 64 

Remaining, $3,640,759 70 

462 

And now it becomes my duty to notice some charges 
that have been brought before you against Dr. Nott by 
James W. Beekman. This gentleman, who has been so 
conspicuous in the persecution of Dr. Nott, appeared be- 
fore you, and was examined as a witness. My client and 
I rejoiced in the opportunity thus at last afforded, of meet- 
ing this prime mover of the inquisitions against Dr. Nott, 
face to face, where his statements could be met by proofs, ^63 
and overthrown by the plainest evidence. He has given 
us a re-hash of the matter of his long and violent phil- 
lipics in the Senate, where there was no information or 
evidence to confute him. If he shall present a different 
appearance at the close of this discussion, from that which 
he exhibited when marching out of the Senate Chamber, 
triumphing in his unanswered calumnies of a defence- 464 



94 

less old man and a venerable clergyman, the consequence 
will be of his own producing. 

He commenced his testimony before you by producing a 
pamphlet called Chancery Documents, which he testified 
had been handed to him by the officers of the college du- 
ring his examination of its affairs in 1849 by the commit- 

465 tee °^ t ^ ie Assembly, of which he was a member ; and re- 
ferred to a copy of a bill in chancery, which it contained, 
filed by Yates and Mclntyre against the trustees and Dr. 
Nott. And he also produced a printed copy of a bill filed 
by those persons against the same parties, both purporting 
to have been sworn to on the fourth of August, 1834. He 
read from the last bill numerous passages and whole pages 
that were not contained in the bill printed in the Chancery 

4gg Documents, handed him by the officers of the college. 
And he pointed out how material were many of the pas- 
sages thus omitted. I saw your astonishment at this ap- 
parent evidence of deliberate deception and fraud, an 
impression which it was Mr. Beekman's design to make, 
and which he had made in the Senate by a similar exhibi- 
tion. But your astonishment was still greater, when I de- 
monstrated that this foul charge was the coinage of Mr. 

*nr, Beekman's malevolence, by calling your attention to 
the first page of the pamphlet thus produced by Mr. 
Beekman, and to the letter there printed, of Jonas Hol- 
land, dated November 22, 1834, stating that he had 
then 'printed that pamphlet ; and when your chairman, 
at my request, produced the printed office copy of the 
bill in chancery, identical with that which Mr. Beek- 
man had produced and ©ompared with the pamphlet copy, 

4gg and read the clerk's indorsement thereon, that it was filed 
on the 16th of May, 1835, six months after the pamphlet 
was printed I and into which, of course, it could not be 
copied. Mr. Beekman himself produced the joint answer 
of the trustees and Dr. Nott, to this amended bill, which 
answer was filed September 8, 1835, so that he must have 
known, as his testimony showed he had read that answer, 
that there had been another and different bill than that in 

469 the pamphlet. I then produced the original bill of Yates 



95 

and Mclntyre, sworn to August 4, 1884, and compared it 
with the copy of the bill contained in the pamphlet pro- 
duced by Mr. Beekman, and showed that they were iden- 
tical. Thus, this charge of deliberate fraud on the part 
of the officers of the college, and upon which so many 
changes had been rung in the Senate, was exploded. 

The next effort of Mr. Beekman, was to show that the 47 q 
$192,000 received by Dr. Nott, out of the stipulations made 
by Yates & Mclntyre, in relation to the Albany lottery, &c, 
belonged to Union College ; and he had two ways to estab- 
lish the position. First, he maintained that the $2,004,099 
worth of tickets in the mixed lottery, mentioned in the 
stipulations of May 31, 1826, (Doc. XIV, folio 116) had 
produced the $192,000 ol profits. This was soon exposed, 
by recurring to the settlement of 1828, (p. 32, 33, Doc's) ,-, 
where it appeared that all the proceeds of the mixed lot- 
teries had been paid to Union College, and were included 
in the sum of $433,102.23, the total of Y. & Mcl.'s liabili- 
ties. This was too absurd, even for Mr. Vanderhey den's 
endorsement, and he promptly admitted the blunder of Mr. 
Beekman. 

Second, he endeavored to make out that, by chap. 186, 
of the laws of 1826, Union College became responsible for 470 
the payment of all the prizes in the mixed lottery. This 
depended upon an entire misconstruction of the 3d section 
of that act, which required the managers to give the same 
bond to the people of the State, for the payment of prizes, 
that had been required by the act of 1822. The responsi- 
bility of the college to the extent of the $2,004,099.00 
worth of tickets which it had in that lottery, out of which 
it received the avails, created by the act of 1822, of course 473 
continued whatever change of lotteries might be made. 
But Mr. Beekman sought to extend that responsibility to 
all the prizes in the mixed lottery, so as to entitle the col- 
lege to the profits arising from the whole. And to ac- 
complish this, he gravely makes a clause of the act of 
1826, relating to the bonds of the managers, applicable to 
and creating a responsibility of the college. It is only 
necessary to state the proposition, to ensure its condemna- 474 



96 

tion. It is but justice to Mr. Vanderheyden, to remark, 
that he utterly disclaimed these views of Mr. Beekman. 
It was upon this frail basis that he sought to justify his 
charge originally made in his report, and repeated, day 
after day, in the Senate, that the college had received from 
Y. & Mel. $850,000, very nearly the sum which the ac- 

475 countant has brought out in another way, seeming to have 
his eye fixed on his patron's orignal statement. With the 
fall of the foundation falls the superstructure. Mr. Beek- 
man further made a great display of figures, to show that 
some ten or twelve millions worth of tickets had been 
drawn by Yates & Mclntyre, under their different purchases 
of the rights granted for the Literature lottery, the Albany 
Land lottery and the Fever Hospital lottery. The ap- 

47g plication of this to Dr. Nott or Union College, was not dis : 
coverable. The question was, what the college was entitled 
to receive. 

Thus terminated the pompous exhibition of Mr. Beek- 
man, in the total overthrow of every one of his positions. 
The enquiry of one of the committee, how a man of Mr. 
Beekman's intelligence could have committed such mis- 
takes, was answered by me, that to a mind diseased, black 

477 would appear white, and white would appear black. 

The reason and meaning of the remark was, that Mr. 
Beekman's mind was strongly imbued with violent preju- 
-" dices, amounting to personal hostility against Dr. Nott. 
This had been evinced by the ©ver- zealous and pertina- 
cious zeal with which he had made, and caused to be 
made, statements and reports assailing the integrity of 'the 
President and the condition of the college, and with which 

478 he had caused them to be printed and circulated through 
the United States, among localities that could have no pos- 
sible interest in the questions. His near connexion, J. G. 
Sanders, has done little else for three years, but to busy 
himself in these matters, and circulate the calumnious re- 
ports against Dr. Nott 

He even ordered an edition of 1000 copies of the re- 
port of the majority of the commission to be printed in a 

479 mutilated form, so as to omit the minority report of Messrs. 



1$ 

97 

Buel and Van Rensselaer, and the memorials of the Trus- 
tees and President of Union College to the Senate, and 
which that body had ordered to be attached to the report. 
He has been hovering around this capitol during your sit- 
tings, advising the accountant, and stimulating him in his 
efforts to ruin Dr. Nott. 

The origin of this animosity of the whole family is to be 4ft0 
ascribed, I am informed, to an old difficulty with the Presi- 
dent about the purchase of some land of the college, and 
by a steady refusal of Dr. Nott to minister to the ambition 
of one of the family to be a Trustee of the college. But 
whatever its source, there is no man that knows them, who 
does not also know, that for many years no terms of vitu- 
peration against the President of Union College have been 
spared by the members of that family. ,«. 

In this feeling, Mr. Beekman has evidently participated 
largely. Nothing but some such powerful motive could 
have induced him to neglect the vast and varied interests 
of his own constituents, in the city of New York, and the 
■corruptions, frauds and public evils that have, and still do 
so much abound there, in order to devote so much time, 
labor, zeal and expense, in the affairs of Union College. 

The impartiality of Mr. Beekman, his anxiety to serve the 400 
public, his deep interest in the concerns of the college, 
which prompted his efforts to expose and punish the de- 
predators of its funds, are exemplified in his forbearance 
to Mr. Henry Yates. The very bill in chancery from which 
he quoted so largely, contained evidence of the fact that 
Mr. Yates had been employed as the agent of the college, 
with a salary, to superintend and watch the movements of 
the contractors, his brother J. B. Yates and A. Mclntyre, 4ft « 
and their associates in New-York; and that instead of per- 
forming that duty, he became their co-partner in the pro- 
fits of the lotteries ! His forbearance towards that gentle- 
man was doubtless occasioned by their fellow- feeling of 
animosity against Dr. Nott. The Doctor's steady resistance 
against the schemes of spoliation by Y. and Mel , his de- 
feat of their efforts to evade and violate their engagements, 
and the consequent disputes between them, kindled a feel- 01 

13* 



ing of revenge, which even the immense fortunes they re- 
alised from the exertion of his talents and sagacity, his 
hazards, his advances, and his labors, could not assuage. 
Hence Mr. Yates and Mr. Beekman had a common object 
and common sympathies. 

I have now to notice some collateral charges, the off- 

4Q5 spring of the joint labors of James W. Beekman and Levi- 
nus Vanderheyden. The latter now drops his character 
of accountant, and comes forth as the public accuser of 
Dr. Nott. After the termination of all his duties as ac- 
countant, by the transmission of his report to the Senate, 
he addressed a communication to that body on the 19th of 
March, 1853, praying that it would order to be printed 
and attached to the report of the commissioners, his own 

430 affidavit, and those of Neziah Bliss and Joseph D. Monell. 
And Mr. Beekman, on the coming in of this application, 
introduced a long resolution, studiously embodying the 
venomous points of the communication, and reasoning 
upon the alleged facts, directing it to be printed and at- 
tached as desired. This evidence on its face, establishes 
the jfcint work of these chivalric, impartial and just citi- 
zens. The paper was thrown in, after an application by 

487 the President and Trustees of Union College for some op- 
portunity to meet the charges against them, and with a 
view of defeating that application ; for<„Mr. Beekman 
strenuously resisted it, and compared the proceeding to 
the impeachment of Warren Hastings, and the efforts of 
Hastings to delay and procrastinate. The falsity of this 
charge against the Trustees and President, was palpable, 
as they were then pressing for an investigation by an im- 

488 partial committee. It has been rendered still more palpa- 
ble by the readiness with which they have appeared before 
you. Mr. Vanderhey den's part in this drama was to fur- 
nish Mr. Beekman with the materials for his speeches and 
his efforts. As they have thus yoked themselves together, 
I propose to keep them in that mutually agreeable relation. 

The first object of this communication to the Senate was 
to establish by the letter of Neziah Bliss, to which he had 

489 appended a worthless and illegal affidavit, that Dr. Nott 



99 

had paid a very trifling consideration for the half of the 
Stuy vesant Cove property, and none whatever for his (Bliss,) 
bond and mortgage for $75,225.32, which he had assigned 
to the college for its nominal amount. A comparison be- 
tween Mr. Bliss' letter in the Senate Doc. No. C8, of 1853, 
and his own testimony taken under an obligatory oath be- 
fore you, contained in the accompanying documents (Doc. aqq 
XXXVIII, folio 323) will show such discrepancies, as to 
shake the credit of any man. But when you regard the 
testimony of Edward James, (Doc. XXXIX, folio 346) and 
see the plump contradictions of Mr. Bliss, by a disinterest- 
ed and impartial witness, corroborated as they are by the 
testimony of B. Nott, you will come to the same conclusion 
that Mr. Bliss did, " that his mind at that time was 
in such a state, that he knew very little what he did," 491 
(folio 33-1) and that if he had added that his mind continu- 
ed in such a state now, that he did not know what he said, 
he would not be much out ol the way. Mr. James proves 
that Bliss' bond and mortgage were given to secure the 
payment of money actually advanced to him by Dr. Nott, 
and ascertained and agreed to on a settlement of tlje ac- 
counts ; he specifies the consideration and gives full details 
of the transaction. B. Nott corroborates him, from the de- 492 
clarations of Bliss. How much more consistent is Mr. 
James' accoun4 of the transaction than Bliss'. The latter 
says that Dr. Nott wished the mortgage to enable him to 
raise money upon it, (folio 327.) And yet he says, u Dr. 
Nott said it (the mortgage) should never be recorded." 
" Did not suppose the mortgage would be transferred or 
recorded, but would come back," (folio 331 .) He does not 
explain how a man is to raise money upon a mortgage, with- 493 
out recording or transferring it ! His testimony is a tissue of 
inconsistencies. Mr. James swears that the mortgage was 
given for an amount actually due, and admitted by Bliss to 
be due, and upon property that Bliss considered worth much 
more than the debt. This is established also by a memoran- 
dum endorsed on the mortgage, and forming part of it, by 
which Bliss was allowed to sell any part of the premises 
mortgaged, and on paying an amount proportioned to the 494 



100 

comparative value of the part sold, in reference to the whole, 
he should he entitled to a release of the part so sold. (See 
the copy of the memorandum furnished by Bliss, at p. 13 
of the document No. 68, got up by Messrs. Beekman and 
"Vanderheyden.) 

This memorandum demonstrates Bliss 5 estimation of the 
40^ value of the property, and his belief that he could receive 
some considerable sum from it, after paying the debt, and 
in itself utterly disproves his story about the mortgage be- 
ing given without any consideration. 

Bliss says he considered this Stuyvesant cove properly 
worth $500,000 in 1842, if properly managed, (folio 333.) 
After this declaration of their own witness, the gentlemen 
who relied on him to prove that, when Dr. Nott transferred 

496 his one-half for $58,6312.15, he swindled the college, for this 
is the classic language they use in reference to this subject ; 
and after this same witness had declared the other half of the 
same property, good security tor $75,225, (see folio 349,) 
after such evidence, these gentlemen, probably, will not 
repeat their calumny, or if they do, they will be silenced 
by all indignant community. 

Another point these associates sought to establish by 

497 Bliss, was, that the transfer of one-half of the Hun- 
ter farm, was for a sum which was the value of the 
whole (p. 213, 214, appendix to accountant's report). This 

purchase was made in 1835, for the sum of $104,800, 
(Bliss' testimony, folio 323.) Gen. Jeremiah Johnson, 
who was the agent in effecting the purchases, and 
lived near the property, and was well acquainted with 
it, was of opinion that it was a very advantageous pur- 

498 chase, and that the property could be sold the next day, 
for $50,000 advance, and so told Bliss, (folio 335.) Bliss, 
himself, represents it as extremely valuable, and that a 
great deal of money could be made by selling it to any 
one. During the ensuing three years after its purchase, 
extensive improvements were made in its vicinity, and it 
is notorious, that real estate in and about the city of New- 
York, wilhin that time, advanced beyond all precedent. 

499 When these circumstances are considered, and the interest 



101 

that had accrued, and the expenses that must have been 
incurred in protecting the property, it will not appear 
strange that it should have been considered worth nearly 
double its original cost. Gen. Dix who visited and ex- 
amined it, deemed it very valuable, and certain, if re- 
tained, to enrich the proprietors. (Folio 298, of his tes- 
timony.) 500 

This real estate was afterwards conveyed by the college 
to Dr. Nott. And one of the allegations of the associates 
is, that the college lost by this re-conveyance, the interest, 
the taxes, asses>ments, rents, and the amount of a mort- 
gage on a part of the property, which the college had paid 
while the property was in its hands ; and again a charge of 
u plundering " the college (as Mr. Vanderheyden expressed 
it) is brought, founded on this allegation. 5Q1 

But it is an entirely erroneous view, to regard these pur- 
chases at all as money transactions. It was a mere change 
in the form of a donation. The college had, in the hands 
of its Treasurer, monies deposited by Dr. Nott, intended as 
gifts. It had the legal title to the above mentioned prop- 
erties. They could not be improved and brought into 
market, unless the title and power of absolute disposition 
rested elsewhere than in a Eoard of Trustees. Dr. Nott, 502 
therefore, exchanged the monies and securities in deposit, 
for these tracts of lands ; which, when brought in proper 
condition, would take the place of the monies and securi- 
ties he applied in procuring the title to them. Dr. Nott 
informed Bliss at the time, (see folio 324,) that he wished 
to invest college funds in the purchase of the Hunter farm. 
In his report to the Trustees in 1833, (folio 241,) he in- 
formed them that he had invested a portion of the funds 503 
received by him on his personal contracts, though to be ap- 
propriated to the college, in real estate, situated in New- 
York and on Long Island. 

Viewing these transactions as a whole, it will be seen 
that any consideration that might be stated for the transfer 
of the title of the college to these tracts, to Dr. Nott, would 
be entirely nominal, and that any idea of profit or loss on 
either side, would be out of the question. 504 



505 



506 



102 

The apparent delay in giving legal effect to his often and 
public declared intentions of bestowing this property for 
the use of the college, is abunciantly explained in the tes- 
timony of Chancellor Walworth and Judge Paige, (Doc. 
XXXIV, folio 245). By them he was advised, that in the 
then state of the law, the property could not be conveyed 
for the trusts he had designecl. After the necessary 
statutes were passed, the condition of the bond of Yates, 
Mclntyre & Ely, for $150,000, heavy payments on 
which were becoming due, and the last of which was 
not completed until May 5, 1849, prevented a final 
settlement of the lottery transactions, without which the 
amounts could not be ascertained, so as to be embraced in 
any conveyance, and the condition of the real property 
above mentioned, which was constantly and necessarily 
changing, prevented the final execution of his designs. 
He, however, as soon as practicable, executed a deed of 
trust, prepared under the best legal advice, and delivered 
it to the Treasurer. This deed was the best that could be 
devised under the circumstances, and, although, as the 
property had changed, it became necessary to make corres- 
ponding alterations, yet it has been re-acknowledged when- 
..„ ever such alterations were made ; and the acting Treasurer, 
who produced it before you, testified that it had been re- 
acknowledged several times, and the last time so late as in 
the month of October, of the present year. What is in- 
tended to be done now, to render the title of the college 
perfect, will be hereafter stated. 

Any one who can perceive in the transactions, rela- 
ting to this real estate, any other than the purest integ- 
rity, and the most generous liberality, must have all the 
prejudices and hostility of Messrs. Beekman and Vander- 
heyden. 

The next charge of the associates, relates to the sale of 
the stock in the Bank of Hudson. At p. 15 of Vanderliey- 
den's communication to the Senate, Doc. 68, he gives the 
affidavit of J. D. Monell, that he was a director of that 
bank, and that it failed and ceased to do business in the 
K 0q early part of June, 181 9. To this Vanderheyden appends 



508 



511 



103 

this note : " The above stock of $5,000, bought from E. 
Nott by college, by resolution of Trustees, July 28, 1819.'' 
The venom of this sting is in the date of the supposed 
purchase, a month after the bank had failed, and in the 
word " bought," and the imputation is thus sought to be 
cast on Dr. Nott, that he knowingly palmed upon the 
college the worthless stock of a broken bank, with knowl- ^jq 
edge of its worthlessness. 

Now the plain history of the transaction, which ordina- 
ry care would have discovered, and ordinary honesty 
would have represented truly, is this. In chap. 98, of the 
Laws of 1813, pp. 104, 105, was a reservation of a right to 
certain institutions to subscribe to the stock of the Bank 
of Hudson ; among them, Union College is enumerated to 
subscribe $5,000. This was a kind of bonus exacted by 
the legislature when bank stock was considered very valu- 
able property. 

The subscription was made by Dr. Nott, in behalf of the 
college. But it would seem that it had no funds on hand 
at the time to pay the subscription, and it was advanced 
by Dr. Nott, who held the stock in his own name as secu- 
rity for the advance. On the 28th of July, 1819, the 
Trustees passed a resolution, which has been read to you k, 2 
from their minutes, directing the treasurer to pay Dr. Nott 
the amount of that stock held in his name, on his transfer- 
ring it to the college. It was so transferred, but the amount 
remained unpaid for some time, and the college paid in- 
terest on it to Dr. Nott. The stock has ever since been 
entered and reported among the assets of the college. The 
very fact which Mr. Vanderheyden seeks to establish, 
namely, that the bank had broken one month previous, ^3 
rendered it the duty of the Trustees to relieve Dr. Nott 
from the burden of the advance, since the stock was no 
longer any security to him ; and the resolution of the Trus- 
tees was, on its face, evidence that the college had net 
" bought" the stock as alleged by Mr. Vanderheyden, but 
recognized its ownership of it. And yet he refers, as 
shown above, to this very resolution to sustain his charge ! 

This charge furnished Mr. Beekman a rich theme for 514 
vituperation in the Senate, and although it was then ex- 



404 

plained and disproved by a senator, neither Mr. Beekman 
nor the accountant, has withdrawn it. If any further evi- 
dence were wanting of the disposition of these gentlemen 
towards Dr. Nott, their conduct in this transaction furnishes 
it. 

The next subject of this veracious communication is, 

nc what we have heard so much about at every step in this 
investigation, particularly when the accountant indulged in 
his bursts of passion; viz., the account in the fund book of 
Dr. Nott's deposits with the treasurer, and the credits given 
the college. The present inquiry does not relate to the 
accuracy of that account, but to the charge which Mr. 
Vanderheyden makes in his voluntary and worthless affi- 
davit, which he, like Mr. Bliss, seems to have deemed ne- 

k | n cessary to inspire confidence in his statements, contained in 
the document referred to, (No. 68,) to the effect, that after 
the fund book had been returned by him to the acting 
treasurer, Mr. Pearson, or as he strangely calls it, loaned 
to him, and while it was in the hands of the latter, and 
before he returned it to Mr. V., there was inserted in it the 
above mentioned account ; and this he has a thousand 
times denounced as a fraudulent interpolation and mutila- 

517 tion of the books of the college. 

Now, Mr. Pearson testifies (folio 446) that the books 
were put in his hands by Mr. Vancterheyden's request, 
that he might bring the accounts down to January 1, 1853. 
It was evidently the duty of the treasurer to enter the 
account in the fund book, a::d whether it was done at one 
time or another, is of no consequence, provided it was 
done in time to bring the items to the notice of the aecount- 

51 g ant, that he might investigate them. That was the object 
of inserting any accounts in the book at all. The book 
belonged to the college, and its officers had a right to 
make any entries they pleased in it, at any time. It was 
not a book of original entries, but a ledger ; and the veri- 
ty of its contents depended on other books. It could mis- 
lead no one. It would really seem as if this ridiculous 
charge had been invented as a set-off to an anticipated at- 

519 tack upon the accountant, for his own gross violation of 
duty and propriety, in tearing from a book of the college 



520 



105 

that had been delivered to him, a most important memo, 
randum, explanatory of an item, and not restoring it when 
he returned the book, but keeping it from the officers of 
the college until the very close of this investigation. 

I have now finished the examination of the charges 
made by Messrs. Beeknian and Vanderheyden, in this ex- 
traordinary communication, and have shown, I trust, to 
your entire satisfaction, that each and every one of them, 
is not only false, but wilful and malignant. 

Not satisfied, apparently, with the publicity which the 
efforts of Mr. Beekman and his connexions would give to 
the communication to the Senate, No. 68, Mr. Vanderhey- 
den, in his libel in the Albany papers of March 24, 1853, 
before mentioned, reiterated the most odious charge, that 
relating to the Hudson Bank stock, the falsity of which , ™ 
has already been exposed, and dwelt at large on the iniquity 
of Dr. Nott's charging the college for the Commercial Bank 
stock, without ever having transferred it, merely because 
the books of the bank did not exhibit a formal transfer ! 
This charge too, has been disposed of, and the reference to 
this publication is now made, as further proof of the per- 
severing malignity of the accountant and witness, on whom 
you must rely, if on anything, for the results of his state- 
ment. 

Mr. Vanderheyden has complained of the irregularities 
of Dr. Nott in making or directing entries in the college 
books, and kas frequently called your attention to them as 
evidences of great impropriety. These entries related ex- 
clusively to his deposit of moneys with the treasurer under 
resolutions of the board of trustees of November, 1834, 
and July 1837, adopting the recommendations of two com- 
mittees, that the monies and securities deposited by Dr. 
Nott, arising from his personal contracts, should be receiv- 
ed by the treasurer, and accounts thereof kept under Dr. 
Nott's directions. (See folios 191,193,197, 374. ) He had a 
right, therefore, to direct the entries referred to, which were 
not of sums deposited, but explanatory of the purpose for 
which, and the authority under which the deposits were 
made. The entry in pencil in a ledger, of the words " Dr, 



522 



523 



524 



14' 



525 



526 - 



106 

Nott," after the words "President's fund," respecting the 
$42,000 deposited by him, was of the same character, and 
to designate the person from whom received. The entry 
was not in any cash book, but in a ledger, and could mislead 
no one, or change the fact as stated in the cash book. 

In what he called the "pathetic" part of his closing 
speech, Mr. Vanderheyden tried to be very severe upon 
Dr. Nott, and the officers of the college, for circulating the 
pamphlet produced by Mr. Beekman, called Chancery 
Documents, and insisted that it was fraudulent and decep- 
tive, because it did not state all the sums of money that had 
been received by Dr. Nott, from the profits of his stipula- 
tions concerning the lotteries. This charge, even he, w r ould 
have been ashamed to make, if he had read the book. It 
not only contained the sums referred to, but Mr. Beek- 
man, in the presence and hearing of Vanderheyden, had 
read them from the pamphlet, for his own purposes ! 

Having, in vain, attempted to brow-beat a most worthy 
witness, E. James, Esq., and to irritate him by the most in- 
sulting and vulgar epithets, this man Vanderheyden has 
had the audacity to hand in to you a memorandum, stating 
that he declined to continue Mr. James' cross-examination, 
because he appeared prejudiced against him, Vanderheyden, 
and had exhibited an interest in Dr. Nott. Not being able to 
anticipate what disposition the committee will make of this 
memorandum, I notice it, merely to pronounce it as false 
as it is scurrilous, and to deny that any exhibition of any 
prejudice against Vanderheyden, or of any partiality or fa- 
vor for Dr. Nott was made by Mr. James, other than should 
be exhibited by any impartial and honest man. 
koo This exploit of the accountant, was doubtless performed 
with the hope of thus nullifying the effect of Mr. James' 
testimony, in relation to the manner in which the accounts 
are presented in the printed report. His evidence on 
that subject, (folios 351 to 357, and 359 to 362,) was any. 
thing but satisfactory to the pride of the accountant. It 
is evidently a just condemnation of the manner in which 
the accounts are made up. The character of Mr. James 
529 as an accomplished accountant probably not surpassed in 



527 



531 



107 

the State, and his long service in that capacity, amid the 
successive changes of the board under whom he holds 
office, are known to one of you, personally, and to 
the other members of the committee, and the public gene- 
rally by reputation. He is corroborated fully in his views 
by another, who has been described, by Mr. Vanderheyden, 
as an able accountant, Mr. Holland. He tells you (folio 432), ggQ 
that the entire tendency of these accounts is to deceive and 
mislead, and give an appearance to matters, the very re- 
verse of w r hat w r as contained in the books delivered to him. 

The evidence of Andrew White, Esq., and Powiss L. 
Green, Esq., to the general skill and ability of Mr. Van- 
derheyden, as an accountant, and to his success in unrav- 
elling complicated accounts, proves, if anything, that he 
has not successfully exerted his faculties on this occasion. 
What the cause of his failure was, you will judge. 

In addition to the remarks on this subject already made, 
folio 76, respecting the manner of making up these ac- 
counts, and in corroboration of them, 1 refer to the nu- 
merous instances which have been pointed out in the 
course of this argument, of erroneous statements and com- 
binations ; to the inconsistent accounts of the cost of the 
west college buildings and grounds, stated in the objections 
to his summary, at folio 472 of Doc. XLIX. And I par- 
ticularly refer to the extraordinary paper furnished by Mr. 
Vanderheyden, after long preparation, contained in Doc. 
XL, attempting to establish his item of interest received 
from Yates & Mclntyre. Let any one read it and judge 
what reliance can be placed on the man who could make 
out such an account, so complicated in itself and so directly 
contradictory of his previous statements on the same sub- 
ject, as show r n by the notes of his testimony appended to 
that document. 

In strong contrast with these accounts, you have the 
clear, distinct and lucid statement of the condition of the 
college in 1831, by Messrs. Wm. James and Silas Wright, 
contained in Doc. XXI, folio 143. The difference between 
it and Mr. Vanderheyden's exhibits, can not be the result 
of different degrees of capacity alone. Those gentlemen ?„. 



532 



533 



108 

had no motive or object but the simple truth, and the con- 
scientious discharge of their duty. Their opportunities 
were ample, and their research appears in the report itself 
to have been thorough. 

William L. Marcy, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, John 
P. Cushman and others of the Trustees, have also made 
~„k thorough examinations of the condition of the college, as 
appears by their reports, some of which are given in the 
accompanying documents. All these gentlemen speak in 
the highest terms of the ability and integrity with which 
the President has managed the concerns of the college, and 
they all report its condition sound. Annual committees 
of the trustees examined the treasurer's accounts ; and 
there was a standing finance committee. The treasurer 

536 reported each year a summary of the affairs of the college 
to the Trustees. None of the members of the special and 
standing committees, no treasurer or other officer or Trus- 
tee ever discovered any improper loans to the President 
for his personal benefit, any misapplication of the college 
funds or property by Dr. Nott, or any debt or demand 
against him. 

In the extraordinary conflict thus presented between 

537 these distinguished and very capable gentlemen, acting 
under the peculiar responsibilities of their stations, and 
having reputations to maintain dearer to them than life., 
on the one side, and Mr. Vanderheyden on the other, with 
his mystified and unintelligible accounts, his prejudices 
and animosities, on which, will you as impartial and expe- 
rienced men, rely 1 

Recurring to the nature and importance of the questions 
539 involved, with which I commenced this argument, may I 
not ask whether you have such strength, force, and clear- 
ness of reliable and uncontradicted evidence from Mr. Van- 
derheyden, as ought to overcome the presumptions arising 
from the characters of the parties sought to be implicated 1 

The accountant, at the close of the very last- momen t 

of this investigation, furnished the last and worst proof 

of his bitter hostility to Dr. Nott, by a false and fraudu- 

530 lent comparison of the sums respectively received by the 



109 

college and Br. Nott from the proceeds of the lotteries. I 
use these expressions false and fraudulent, deliberately, as 
truly characterising his conduct on that occasion. You 
will remember, gentlemen, that among the sums he put 
down as having been received by Dr. Nott, was $165,000 
of notes of Yates & Mclntyre. Now, he knew perfectly 
well, for it had been the subject of repeated discussion, kjq 
and is shown by his own book, in statementNo. 19, p. 130, 
that of these notes Dr. Nott received only $71,691.20, 
which sum he charges the Doctor at p. 82) as having been 
received out of these notes. The balance, $95,165.09 was 
received by the college. (See Holland's statement, Doc. 
XLV, folio, 417.) Can any thing be more scandalous than 
this brazen attempt to deceive you? 

The sums retained or received by Dr. Nott, are the fol- ^ 
lowing : 
The above 22 notes on the stipulations of January 4, and 

24, 1826, $71,691 20 

And this is all that he received from any 
transactions growing out of the Literature 
lottery. 

The sum stated at p. 172, of the account- 
ant's report, of sums received from the 542 
Albany land lottery, &c, and with which 
the college had no connexion and no in- 
terest more than I had, 192,199 94 

He received, or rather the treasurer received 
for him, the payments made on the bond 
for $1 50^000 for principal only. (See Doc. 
LI, folio 593.) 203,091 75 



$466,982 89 



543 



The whole of which has been applied to purchases of 
property, and its improvement for the college, so that in 
fact, he has not realised a dollar, personally, from these 
receipts. 

He also retained the balance of the Presi- 
dent's fund, after deducting expenses,... $115,640 53 544 
The whole of which he has transferred to the college ; 



110 

and from the beginning to the end, he has avowed the de- 
sign of bestowing all these funds on the college. 

Let us next see what the College has received : 
By the statement of the treasurer, folio 
421 7 it realised from the lottery (ex- 
clusive of other grants,) after deducting 
the payments to the other institutions 
and the repayments to Yates & Mclntyre, 277,522 33 
It receives the balance of the President's 

fund, 115,640 53 

And the amount of the 22 notes of Yates & 
Mclntyre, and the profits of the stipula- 
tions in which the college had no interest, 
the above amount of 466,982 89 

546 Making a total of $860,145 75 

And the college is at this moment worth more than this 
sum, as will appear by the following : 
The property on hand, productive and available, (see 

treasurer's statement, fol. 482,) is, $190,169 50 

Its buildings, library and apparatus cost, 

(see same statement, fol. 484,) 333 ,431 10 

547 

$523,600 60 

Deduct for debts, $18 , 547 76 

Actual and assumed losses, 

(see fol. 486,) 81,332 66 

— ~ 99,880 42 

Leaving property on hand, $423 , 720 1 8 

Add to this the property conveyed by Dr. 

548 Nott, 600,000 00 

And the college is now worth, $1 ,023 ,720 18 

What a different view of results does this present from 
the Flemish statement of the accountant ! 

In reviewing the history of this college, its struggles and 
difficulties, and then adverting to its present palmy condi- 
tion, as now exhibited, no one can avoid perceiving, that it 
kaq ow ^ s ever V thing to the wonderful devotion, the continued 



Ill 

and idefatigable labor, and the sagacity of one man. His 
whole long life has been devoted to this one object, and all 
the fruits of his labors and hazards, which he had a right 
to appropriate to himself, and which almost any other man 
would have so appropriated — he has bestowed on this child 
of his affections and his hopes The funds and property 560 
acquired by the profits on the lotteries, whether President's 
fund, notes of Yates & Mclntyre, or bond of Yates, Mcln- 
tyre k Ely ; whatever stocks or money have come to his 
hands, other than such as he invested for its benefit, 
have been applied to the improvement and enhancement 
of the very valuable property, he has always destined for 
one sole purpose, the object of all his cares. 

For years has he submitted to private suspicion and to 
public imputations, by persons who would not understand ^g, 
his purposes and his plans, or who chose not to become ac- 
quainted with them. The newspapers have teemed with 
garbled and one-sided statements; the Senate chamber has 
rung with the foulest charges, which reporters have trans- 
ferred to the press ; the widest circulation of exparte re- 
ports has been caused by the ceaseless activity of the men 
who have pursued him as if he were a wild beast or a 
demon; until a large portion of the community has be- §§% 
come saturated with prejudice. 

Some of those who had a partial knowledge of what he 
had already done to consummate his designs, have affected 
to believe, that the conveyance and will executed by him, 
were invalid or insufficient. 

Now that the condition of the property he has secured, is 
sueh that an exact description of it can be given, that the har- 
rassing and vindictive persecutions against him are lulled, 553 
at least for a season, and the inquiries of this committee have 
closed, the President is able to perfect his long cherished 
design, of vesting in Union College, the legal title to the 
rich inheritance he has so long labored to acquire for it, by 
an instrument confirming and reiterating the existing con- 
veyance, so that all doubts or scruples, real or imaginary, 
that may have existed, in relation to the validity of that 
conveyance, in consequence of subsequent changes in the 554 



565 



566 



112 

property, rendered advisable if not indispensible by cir- 
cumstances, or from any other cause, shall be forever and 
effectually removed. 

And he has, therefore, instructed me to prepare a full 
release to Union College, of all his claims to any pecuniary 
balance that may appear to belong to him on the books of 
the college, or otherwise, on account of deposits made by 
him without consideration, with the Treasurer. This will 
include the balance of the President's fund or the 2J per 
cent, not already deposited, and the balance of the Bliss 
bond, and of the payments on the $150,000 bond, so often 
mentioned. And it will embrace all gains the college has 
realised by the sale and re-purchase of the original college 
sites and buildings, and the sales of portions of the new 
college sites, acquired by the private means of Dr. Nott, 
and the sums gratuitously expended by him, on the grounds, 
gardens, houses, and out houses of the collrge. 

He has also instructed me to prepare a more formal con- 
veyance, confirmatory of that already executed, and vesting 
in Union College the immediate title in trust, for the estab- 
lishment of professorships, scholarships, an observatory, a 
cemetery, and other educational purposes, under the acts of 
18-10 and 1841, of specific bonds, mortgages and contracts 
arising from the sale of the Stuyvesant Cove property, and 
from the sale of lots in the tract consisting of the Hunter 
farm, and other lands united therewith, by Dr Nott, and 
by Messrs. Crane k Ely; and of his interest in the said 
united tracts remaining unsold, being one-third thereof, 
the whole amounting in value, at this time, to at least 
$600,000. The lots remaining unsold, are constantly in- 
tgo creasing in value, which will be greatly augmented, if 
the country continues for a few years, in its usual prosperity. 
And here is the same key, to all the movements of Dr. 
Nott's life, with which I presented you in the early part of 
this argument, when speaking of the great sacrifice he made 
on leaving his church in Albany, in 1804, to occupy the 
office of President of Union College. It unlocks and ex- 
plains his every act from that time to this. It proclaims 
£09 the reason and motive for the years of toil he has devoted, 



567 



570 



571 



113 

the rigid economy he has practised, and the plans and 
schemes in which he has been engaged for fifty years. His 
own personal benefit, and that of his family, have been 
disregarded. Union College, the idol of his affections, of 
his hopes, and of his ambition, has been the sole, steady, 
and unvarying object of his ceaseless labors by day, and 
of his anxious thoughts at night. 

And now, I ask, who will dare to stigmatise such de- 
signs, and such actions, as systematic plunder and robbery, 
of this child of love and hope, as deliberate fraud, false- 
hood and deception 1 

Dr. Nott is a clergyman, and like his brethren, unac- 
quainted with the modes and forms of business transactions; 
he is not an accountant ; his mind looks to general plans 
and great results, and like all such minds, is not always 
attentive to details and strict regularity and precision. His 
modes of transacting business are different from those of 
most people. With these characteristics, and under the 
trying circumstances, in which he has, for so many years, 
single handed, sustained Union College, amid perils and diffi- 
culties that often threatened her existence, it would be won- 
derful if irregularities had not occurred. What portion of 
these are attributable to him, and what part to other ofii- 570 
cers of the college, cannot now be determined. But what- 
ever those irregularities have been, and for whatever por- 
tion he is responsible, it has been made most manifest, that 
they have not been the result of any mercenary or selfish 
motive on his part. On the contrary, you will, I doubt not, 
bear your testimony to the pervading integrity and honesty 
of purpose, and the noble disinterestedness, which have 
marked his whole administration of the affairs of Union 573 
College, and which entitle him to the highest credit and 
honor, and to the lasting gratitude of all friends of educa- 
tion, and of the amelioration of our race. 



15< 



THE PRINCIPAL 

DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONY, AND STATEMENTS 

PRODUCED IN BEHALF OF 

ELIPHALET NOTT and the Trustees of Union College, 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPOINTED 

MARCH 28, 1853, TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN 

PECUNIARY AFFAIRS OF THAT 

COLLEGE : 

TOGETHER WITH SOME OF THE TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS 
ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. 



CONTENTS. 

Abstract of grants made to Union College by the early 
acts of the Legislature, Doc. I, folio 1 to 3. 

Act to limit the continuance of lotteries, passed April 5, 
1822, Doc. II, folio 3 to 13, 

Resolution of Trustees of Union College, July 24, 1822, 
authorising the acceptance of the act of 1822, and com- 
mitting to the President the supervision of the lottery 
for the promotion of literature, Doc. Ill, folio 13. 

Acceptance of the terms of the act by Union College, 

Doc. IV, folio 15 to 28. 

Containing the certificate of John Savage, Comptroller, 
fixing the amount to be drawn by the lottery, and the 
time when to be finished, folio 20, 21. 

Also, the certificate of E. Starr, Deputy Comptroller, 
giving the amount of tickets drawn the previous five 
years, to fix the annual average amount to be drawn in 
the Literature lottery, folio 23 to 27. 

Original contract with Yates & Mclntyre, July 29, 1822, 
for the sale of the interest of the institutions in the 
the tickets authorised to be sold by the act of 1822 5 

Doc. V, folio 29 to 38. 

Supplement to the last agreement, providing for the pay- 
ment of the expenses of supervision and management, 

Doc. VI, folio 39 to 51. 

Contract between Union College and Hamilton College, for 
the purchase of the interest of the latter in the Litera- 
ture lottery, Doc. VII, folio 51 to 65. 

Letter of J. P. Cushman and A. C. Paige, a committee of 
the Trustees of Union College, to the Treasurer of Ham* 
ilton College, giving a history of the transactions with 
Yates & Mclntyre, Doc. VIII, folio 66 to 87. 

Proposition of Yates & Mclntyre to President Nott, of 
January 4, 1826, of terms for relief, 

Doc. IX, folio 88 to 91. 

Letters of Yates & Mclntyre respecting the above proposi- 
tion, and the aid derived from the President, Doc. X, 
folio 91 ; Doc. XI, folio 95 ; Doc. XII, folio 101. 

Formal proposition of Yates & Mclntyre, of January 24, 
1826, embodying the terms of Doc. IX, 

Doc. XIII, folio 105. 



iv contents* 

Propositions by Yates and Mclntyre, for permission to mix 
tickets of the Literature lottery and those of the Alba- 
ny land lottery and the Fever hospital lottery, and for 
aid in selling and drawing the tickets, Doc. XIV, folio 
109; Doc. XV, folio 112; Doc. XVI, folio 116; Doc, 

XVII, folio 118; Doc. XVIII, folio 120; part of Doc, 

XVIII, folio 127. 

Extract of letter of A. Mclntyre, May 15, 1830> acknowl- 
edging the aid rendered Yates & Mclntyre by Dr. Notfy 

Doc. XIX, folio 126. 

Final settlement between Union College and Yates & Mc- 
lntyre for 8| per cent on the scheme price of tickets, 

Doc. XX, page 32, 33. 

Pinal settlement in relation to the President's fund, 

Page 34, 35. 

Report of Silas Wright and William James, July 26, 1831$ 
(misprinted, 1851$) of the fiscal condition of Union 
College, Doc. XXI, folio 143 to 184. 

Resolution of Trustees of July 27, 1831, upon the coming 
in of the last preceding report, respecting the President's 
fund, Doc, XXII, folio 185. 

Conclusion of report of Wm. L. Marcy, Silas Wright and 
John P. Cushman, Nov. 24, 1834, relating to the trans- 
actions with Yates & Mclntyre, and to the Treasurer re- 
ceiving bonds and other property from the President in 
deposit, &c, DoC. XXIII, folio 186 to 193. 

Report of John P. Cushman and John A. Dix, July 25, 
1837, relating to a division between the college and Dr. 
Nott, of the profits received under the stipulations of 
January, 1826, &c.$ Doc. XXIV, folio 193 to 19&. 

^Resolutions of Trustees adopting the above report, and 
directing its recommendations to be carried into effect* 

Doc. XLI, folio 374, 

Statements of the Treasurer in pursuance of the last reso- 
lution, and approval of finance committee, 

Doc. XXV, folio 200, 202. 

Extracts from reports of Attorney General Bronson, re^ 
specting the amount of tickets the institutions were en- 
titled to draw under the act of 182&, 

Doc, XXVI, folio 203, 

Report of Messrs* Marcy and Flagg, ftov. 15, 1838> giving 
a history of the disputes with Yates & Mclntyre, and 
the terms of the settlement agreed on, 

Doc. XXVII, folio 205, 

Memorandum of the settlement, Doc. XXVIII, folio 216. 

Original agreement for the settlement in full, 27th July, 
1837, Doc. XLII, folio 375 to 393. 

Bond giVtjn by Yates, Mclntyre & Ely, on the settlement, 
to pay $150,000, Doc. XXIX, folio 219. 



CONTENTS. V 

Resolution of Trustees of July 22, 1845, authorising con- 
veyance to the President of the half of the Hunter farm 
and the Stuyvesant Cove property. Doc. XXX, folio 223. 

Extract from report of President to Trustees, July. 1831, 
stating his expectation of receiving large amounts from 
his agreements with Yates & Mclntyre, and his intention 
to appropriate the amount, &c. to Union College, or a 
kindred institution, Doc. XXXI, folio 225. 

Extract from report of President to Trustees for 1832, 
giving an account of his transactions with Yates & Mc- 
lntyre, and repeating his intention to appropriate his 
share of the profits, after providing for his expenses and 
hazards to the use of Union College, or some kindred 
institution connected therewith, and that he had made 
provision for doing so in his will, 

Doc. XXXII, folio 227. 

Annual report of the President to the Trustees for 1833, 
repeating the previous declarations, and stating the in- 
vestment of the profits received by him from Yates & 
Mclntyre, in lands in New-York, on Long Island, &c, 
and in securities, Doc. XXXIII, folio 239. 

Chancellor Walworth's certificate of his having advised 
Dr. Nott that he could not legally convey to the college 
for the trusts contemplated, and the necessity of a law, 

Judge Paige's certificate of having prepared a deed in trust 
to the college, after the passage of the proposed laws, 

The Treasurer's certificate of such deed having been exe- 
cuted and delivered to him, 

Doc. XXXIV, folio 245 to 251. 

Statement of the Treasurer, showing the profits to the col- 
lege by the sale and purchase of sites for the old and 
new college buildings, effected bv the pecuniary ad- 
vances of Di\ Nott, Doc. XXXV, folio 253 to 258. 

Resolution directing examination of the account of the 
President's agency in the financial affairs of the college, 
and the report thereon of the auditing committee, 

Doc, XXXVI) folio 259 to 265. 

Documents relating to the transfer of Commercial Bank 

stock to H. Nott & Co., and their payment therefor, 

Doc. XXXVII, folio 266 to 274. 

Interrogatories to John A> Dix and A. C. Flagg, and their 
answers thereto, and their oral testimony, Doc. XXXVIII, 
folio 275. 

Answers and testimony of Gen. Dix, folio 286. 

Testimony of A. C. Flagg, folio 306. 

Testimony of Neziah Bliss, numbered also Doc. XXXVIII, 
by mistake, folio 323. 

Testimony of Edward James, Doc. XXXIX, folio 336. 



VI CONTENTS. 

Statement of Mr. Vanderheyden, in reference to interest 
received of Yates & Mclntyre, Doc. XL, folio 363. 

His testimony in relation to the same subject, folio 371. 

Original agreement in full, respecting the $150,000 bond, 

Doc. XLII, folio 374. 

Statement of Dr. Van Vechten, respecting promise to sub- 
mit report of accountant to officers of Union College, 

Doc. XLIII, folio 394. 

Testimony of Gen. Geo. R. Davis, respecting Mr. Vander- 
heyden's promise to submit his accounts to Dr. Nott be- 
fore reporting them, and contradicting his libel on Dr. 
Nott, Doc. XLIV, folio 397. 

Statement of the Treasurer in answer to question of the 
Chairman, of the whole amount of money received from 
the lottery by Union College, and his explanation there- 
of. Doc. XLV, folio 406. 

Testimony of A. Holland, Treasurer, 

Doc. XL VI, folio 422. 

Testimony of Professor Pearson, Acting Treasurer, 

Doc XL VII, folio 444. 

Reprint of the accountant's summary of the condition of 
Union College, in his report, Doc. XL VIII, folio 454. 

Objections to the same, Doc. XLIX, folio 464. 

Summary of the financial condition of the college, present- 
ed by the Treasurer, Doc. L, folio 478. 

Result of Dr. Nott's transactions with the college, stated in 
the form of an accounts, Doc. LI, folio 500. 



NOTE. 



The documents herein contained are not all that were produced 
before the committee. The books of account and the minutes of the 
Trustees were all examined and referred to, during the whole of 
the investigation. These are quoted, and extracts given in the argu- 
ment. The most material of the documentary evidence, however, is 
given in full. They are all derived either from the pleadings in the 
suits in chancery given in evidence, the pamphlet called Chancery 
Documents produced by Mr. Beekman, or other authentic publications; 
and the reports of committees, and of the President to the Trustees, 
and the resolutions of that board, were verified by the testimony of 
Mr. Holland, Mr. Pearson, or Mr. Willard. 

It was impracticable to give the testimony of Mr. Yanderheyden, as 
it was desultory, full of repetitions, mingled with remarks as counsel, 
and occupied at least a fortnight. The other testimony on the part 
of the prosecution is given, except that which related to Mr. Vander- 
heyden's character as a man of truth, and for integrity as an account- 
ant, the result of which is stated in the argument at folio 87; and ex- 
cept the testimony in respect to his capacity as an accountant. On the 
latter subject, Andrew White and Powiss L. Green testified to his 
capacity and skill, and specified instances of his having regulated intri- 
cate accounts and discovered errors and frauds. Hamlet H. Hickox 
also testified favorably as to the accounts in the report being plain and 
intelligible, but on cross-examination very much qualified his opinion. 

Testimony was also given, tending to show that some of the property 
in which investments had been made was not good security, and the 
books of the Commercial Bank were produced, showing that no trans- 
fers of the stock of that bank had been made by Union College to H. Nott 
& Co.; but that they had been transferred by E. Nott to the Farmers' 
Loan Company, and by that company to H. Nott & Co. Nor is the 
testimony of Benjamin Nott, in behalf of the defence, given, because it 
was mainly corroborative of that of Edward James, in respect to 
conversations with Neziah Bliss, and in respect to the stock of the Com- 
mercial Bank, which he testified was obtained by H. Nott & Co., of 
which firm he was a partner, from Union College through Dr. Nott; that 
his firm borrowed money on it; that they provided for it in their as- 
signment, and that it was paid for to the college. 



V1H NOTE. 

The statements of James W. Beekman, before the Committee, were 
not testimony of any fact within his knowledge, except the delivery to 
him of a pamphlet, by the officers of the College. The residue consis-. 
ted of comparisons of different statements, and the construction of a 
statute. 

A desire to abbreviate the pamphlet as much as could be, consistent 
with a fair exhibition of the case, induced the above omissions, which 
could as well be supplied by this statement of their substance, for alj 
practical purposes. 

The documents and testimony are separately numbered, and in the 
margin the number of each folio is given for convenient reference. 



DOCUMENTS, &c. 



[Instead of giving at length the early acts of the Legisla- 
ture appropriating moneys or lands to the benefit of 
Union College, it is deemed better to save room, to re- 
print an abstract of those acts, as given by Robert H. 
Pruyn, Esq., one of the Committee of the Assembly to 
investigate the affairs of that College, in his report to 
the House of Assembly, March 30, 1850. Assembly 
Doc, No. 190, p. 54. The fidelity of the abstract can be 
tested by comparing it with the acts themselves, given 
at large in the appendix to Mr. Vanderheyden's report, 
p. 191, to 197.] 

STATEMENT of all the acts in which grants have been made 
to Union College. 

1 . By the act of April 9, 1795, for the purchase 

of Library and apparatus, $3,750 00 

2. By the act of April 11, 1796, for the erec- 

tion of buildings, 10,000 00 

3. By the act of March 30, 1797, seven hun- 

dred and fifty dollars a year for two years, 

for the support of a Professor, 1,500 00 

4. By section 1, of the act of March 7, 1800, 

for the completion of the College edifice, 10,000 00 

5. By section 3 of the same act, ten military 

lots were granted, of 550 acres each, for 
the support of the president and profes- 
sors, 

6. By the act of April 8, 1801, and of April 

3, 1802, the Garrison lands, by the He- 
gents, 

7. By the act of March 30, 1805, by lottery,. 80,000 00 

8. By the act of April 13, 1814 : 

1. For the erection of build- 

ings, $100,000 

2. For paying an existing debt, 30,000 

3. For library and apparatus,. 20,000 

4. For the relief of indigent 

students, 50,000 

200,000 00 

[Six years' interest on the last, 84,000 00] 

1 



II. 

AN ACT to limit the continuance of Lotteries* 

Passed April 5, 1822- 
Whereas the public institutions to which grants were 
made originally, in the lottery instituted April 13th, 1814, 
for the promotion of literature, have already suffered ma- 
terially by delay in drawing the same : Arid whereas it is 
believed, that said lottery might be managed with greater 
economy and less hazard, by the institutions interested in 
its success, than it has hitherto been, or can hereafter be, 
by the state : And whereas all that could be thus saved, 
by greater economy in the management of said lottery , would 
go to diminish the loss of said institutions: And whereas, 
by such an arrangement, the state would be relieved from 
the hazard of future losses : Therefore, 

BE it enacted by the people of the State of New-York, rep- 
resented in Senate and Assembly, That it shall and may be 
lawful for said institutions to assume conjointly, or to ap- 
point one of their number to assume the supervision and 
direction of said lottery, and from time to time to appoint 
such and so many managers thereof, and other agents, for 
the conducting the same, as to them may seem proper ; and 
the said managers and agents, or any of them, from time to 
time to remove at their pleasure, and others in their stead 
to appoint, and to make such contracts in relation to the 
said lottery, and to take such security for the fulfilment of 
such contracts, as to them shall from time to time seem 
proper and reasonable, and to direct the times and manner 
of drawing the said lottery, and the sum to be raised by 
each class thereof, and to adopt such schemes as may be 
proper in relation thereto, and to receive the avails and 
hazard the losses, and be responsible for the payment of 
the prizes of said lottery for a limited time, in lieu of, and 
as an equivalent for, the several specific grants to them 
therein made : Provided, they will accept thereof for any lim- 
ited time, less than the time in which the state can raise and 
pay said grants, at the rate monies have hitherto been raised 
and paid, or can, in the judgment of the comptroller, be cal- 
culated, with safety to the state, to be hereafter raised and 
paid ; w r hich time shall be determined by that officer, from 
the facts and information in his possession, and a certificate 
thereof filed in the office of the secretary of this state im- 
mediately after the passing of this act. 

And be it further enacted, That whenever said institu- 
tions shall have severally accepted in writing of the pro- 
vision contained in this act, in lieu of, and as equivalent 
for, the grants to them severally made in said lottery, and 



3 

shall each of them have filed such acceptance in the office 
of the secretary of this state, it shall be lawful for them 
to assume the management thereof: Provided however, 
And be it farther enacted, That from the time such accep- 
tance is tiled, the state shall be absolved from all respon- 7 
sibility to provide for any loss or losses that may occur on 
any future class or classes of said lottery, and also from all 
obligation to pay any prize ticket or prize tickets drawn 
therein, out of any monies belonging to the people of this 
state. 

And he it further enacted, That the provisions contained 
in the act relative to lotteries, passed April 13th, 1819, from 
the ninth to the thirty-first sections thereof inclusive, shall 
not be considered as applicable to lottery managers or 
agents of said institutions, appointed under this act, ex- 
cept so far as the said institutions shall deem it expedient 
to adopt and apply the same. 8 

And be it further enacted, That before it shall be lawful for 
any manager or agent, acting under the authority of said in- 
stitutions, to offer the tickets of any class of said lottery for 
sale, he shall enter into a bond to the amount now required 
of lottery managers, with the people of this state, with sure- 
ties to the satisfaction of the comptroller, conditioned for 
the faithful payment of all prize tickets by him signed, 
when duly presented ; and in case of failure or refusal, the 
comptroller shall, on proof being made to him thereof, de- 
liver such bond to the attorney-general for collection ; and 
on recovery, shall pay from the avails thereof said prize 
tickets, if presented within the time limited by Jaw. 9 

And whereas the object of this act is not to increase the 
grants made to the said institutions, but to contract with 
them for assuming the responsibility and running the haz- 
ard, and taking the management of the literature lottery, 
and thus to place them in a situation to save in all future 
classes of said lottery, by more prudent contracts, and more 
careful management, whatever can be saved out of that 
indefinite amount that is liable, on the present plan of con- 
ducting said lottery, to be raised and absorbed by the re- 
currence of losses and the payment of managers : There- 
fore, 10 

And be it enacted, That the annual average amount of 
tickets, according to their scheme price, in all lotteries here- 
after to be drawn under this act, during the term of years 
fiKed by the comptroller, shall not exceed the annual ave- 
rage amount of tickets, according to their scheme price, in 
the lotteries already drawn within this state, during the 
five years immediately preceding the first day of January, 
one thousand eight hundred twenty -two, which amount of 
tickets shall be ascertained by the comptroller, and a cer- 



4 

tificate thereof filed in the office of secretary ol this state ; 
and said institutions shall furnish the comptroller a certi- 
fied copy of the amount of tickets, at their scheme price, 

11 in all classes hereafter to be drawn, that the same may be 
also filed in the office of the secretary of this state ; and 
so soon as the whole amount of tickets, at their scheme 
price, authorised by this act, shall have been sold and 
drawn, the authority herein granted to said institutions 
shall cease, though the time fixed by the comptroller in 
his certificate, may not have expired. 

And be it further enacted. That said institutions shall ap- 
ply the avails of said lottery, (after deducting the expense 
of managing the same,) pro rata, according to the provi- 
sions of the original act, in which said grants were made, 

12 and make report thereof, annually, to the regents of the 
university, as said act directs. 

And be it further enacted, That if said institutions shall 
accept of the provisions of this act, then in that case it 
shall be their duty to raise and pay the grant made by lot- 
tery to the historical society, in the same proportions as 
the other grants are raised and paid; and in consideration 
thereof, the limitation of time contained in the first enac- 
ting clause of this act, shall be proportionately extended. 



13 



III. 

Resolutions of the Trustees of Union College. 
At a meeting of the trustees of Union College, July 24, 
1822 — Resolved, That the treasurer of this board be autho- 
rised, by and with the consent of the president of college, to 
accept, under the seal oi this board, of the provisions of 
the act to limit the continuance of lotteries, passed April 
5th, 1822. And that the said treasurer be further autho- 
rised, under the seal of this board, to assume such respon- 
sibilities, and to give and take such securities, and to make 
such contracts relative to the lottery instituted for the pro- 

14 motion of literature, or any part thereof, and to pledge or 
alienate such property belonging to this board, in carrying 
the same into effect as the president of the college shall ap- 
prove, to whose supervision the same is hereby committed, with 
authority to exercise, in behalf of this institution^ all those 
powers vesting in it by virtue of the aforesaid act to limit the 
the continuance of lotteries. 

IV. 

Acceptance by the Trustees of Union College, of the 
provisions of an act to limit. &c, in which is recited the 

15 certificate of the Comptroller and Dep. Comptroller. 

Whereas the comptroller of the state of New- York has 



filed in the secretary's office, certificates in the words and 
figures following, viz : 

Whereas by an act of the legislature of the state of 
New- York, entitled "An act to limit the continuance of 
lotteries," passed April 5th, 1822, it is recited and enacted 
as follows : 

Whereas the public institutions to which grants were 
made originally in the lottery instituted April 13, 1814, 
for the promotion of literature, have already suffered ma- 
terially by delay in drawing the same : and whereas it is 
believed that the said lotteries might be managed with 
greater economy and less hazard, by the institutions inter- 16 
ested in its success, than it has hitherto been or can here- 
after be by the state : and whereas all that could be thus 
saved by greater economy in the management of said lot- 
tery, would go to diminish the loss of said institutions : 
and whereas by such an arrangement the state would be 
relieved from the hazard of future losses : Therefore, 

Be it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, 
represented in senate and assembly, That it shall and may 
be lawful for the said institutions to assume conjointly, or 
to appoint one of their number to assume the supervision 
and direction of said lottery, and from time to time to ap- 
point such and so many managers thereof, and other agents 17 
for the conducting the same as to them may seem proper ; 
and the said managers and agents, or any of them, from 
time to time, to remove at their pleasure, and others in 
their stead to appoint, and to make such contracts in rela- 
tion to the said lottery, and to take such security for the 
fulfilment of such contracts, as to them from time to time 
shall seem reasonable, and to direct the times and manner 
of drawing the said lottery, and the sum to be raised by 
each class thereof, and to adopt such schemes as may be 
proper in relation thereto, and to receive the avails, and 18 
hazard the losses, and be responsible for the payment of 
the prizes of said lottery for a limited time in lieu 
of, and as an equivalent ibr, the several specific grants 
to them therein made : Provided they will accept thereof, 
for any limited time less than the time in which the state 
can raise and pay said grants, at the rate monies have 
hitherto been raised and paid, or can in the judgment of 
the comptroller be calculated with safety to the state, to 
be hereafter raised and paid, which time shall be deter- 
mined by that officer, from the facts and information in 19 
his possession, and a certificate thereof filed in the office 
of the secretary of this state, immediately after the passing 
of this act. 

And whereas a certificate was made on the 9th day of 
April, 1822, in the words and figures following, to wit : 



In pursuance therefore, of the duty imposed on the 
comptroller, I, John Savage, comptroller of the state of 
New- York, do hereby certify, that from facts and informa- 
tion in possession of the comptroller, it appears that the 
net avails of lotteries drawn in the last twenty-five years, 
have produced the annual average of twenty-four thousand 

20 five hundred and eighty-four dollars and fifty seven cents. 
In the last five years, the annual average has been twenty- 
nine thousand nine hundred and fifty six dollars and thir- 
teen cents ; and in the last three years, the annual average 
has been thirty-two thousand eight hundred and nine dol- 
lars and ninety three cents. It is ascertained that the 
amount now due to the several institutions, is three hun- 
dred and twenty-two thousand two hundred and fifty-six 
dollars and eighty-one cents. In the judgment of the 
comptroller, therefore, it may be calculated with safety to 

21 the state, that the above amount of three hundred and 
twenty-two thousand two hundred and fifty-six dollars and 
eighty-one cents, can be hereafter raised and paid, in eleven 
years. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my 
name, and affixed my official seal, the 9th day of April, 
1822 

JOHN SAVAGE. 

Which certificate was made without reference to any 

22 failure or delay in the payment of the net avails of the 6th 
class of the literature lottery, then drawing, which net 
avails were estimated at $33,000, any ultimate failure in 
the payment of which, must affect the above calculation 
to the extent of such failure, and extend proportionally 
the time in which it might be calculated with safety to the 
state, that the whole amount due the several institutions 
could be raised and paid. 

And whereas it is further recited and enacted in said act 
to limit the continuance of lotteries, as follows, to wit : 

23 "And whereas the object of this act is not to increase 
the grants made to the said institutions, but to contract 
with them for assuming the responsibility, and running the 
hazards, and taking the management of the literature lot- 
tery, and thus to place them in a situation to save, in all 
future classes of said lottery, by more prudent contracts 
and more careful management, whatever can be saved out 
of that indefinite amount that is liable on the present plan 
of conducting said lottery, to be raised and absorbed by 
the recurrence of losses and the payment of managers : 

24 Therefore, 

u Be it enacted, that the annual average amount of tic- 
kets, according to their scheme price in all lotteries, here- 



after to be drawn under this act, during the term of years 
fixed by the comptroller, shall not exceed the annual aver- 
age amount of tickets, according to their scheme price in 
the lotteries already drawn in this state, within the five 
years immediately preceding the first day of January, one 
thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, which amount of 
tickets shall be ascertained by the comptroller, and a certifi- 
cate thereof filed in the office of the secretary of this state." 
In pursuance, therefore, of the duty imposed on the 
comptroller, I, Ephm. | Starr] dep. comptroller of the state 25 
of New-York, do hereby certify, that the following several 
amounts of tickets, reckoned at their scheme price, were 
drawn in this state during the five years preceding the 
first of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 
two, viz : 

In Medical Science Lottery, No. 3, $182,000 

do No. 4,.... 182,000 
do No. 5,.... 400,000 

In Literature Lottery, No. 1, 200,000 

do No. 2, 200,000 26 

do No. 3, 225,000 

do No. 4, 150,000 

do No. 5, 140,000 

Making, $1,679,000 

To which amount of one million six hundred and sev- 
enty-nine thousand dollars, there remains to be added the ■ 
further amount of the O wego Lottery, drawn in New- York 
by virtue of an act passed April 21, 1818, the amount of __, 
which said lottery is not found in any documents in this 
office. EPHM. STARR, Dep. Comp. 

Comptroller's office. State of JVew-Yoik, Albany, 4th Feb- 
ruary, 1823. 

To all whom it may concern : Know ye that the trustees 
of Union College, in the town of Schenectady, in the state 
of New- York, one of the institutions interested in the said 
lottery, have for themselves and for the other institutions 
by whom they are appointed and authorised, accepted and 
do hereby accept of the provisions of said act of April 5th, 
1822, conformably to the above recited certificate of £he 28 
comptroller, filed in the office of the secretary of this state. 
In testimony whereof, the said trustees of Union College 
have caused their common seal to be hereunto 
(l. s.) affixed, this eighteenth day of April, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 
three. 

HENRY YATES, Jun., 

Treasurer of Union College. 



V. 

^ Original Contract with Yates fy Mclntyre. 

Whereas by an act of the legislature of this state, enti- 
tled " An act to limit the continuance of lotteries," passed 
April 5, 1822, certain powers were vested in the several 
public institutions interested in the lottery, instituted for 
the promotion of literature, on their acceptance of said 
act; and whereas certain of said institutions have empow- 
ered the trustees of Union College to act in their behalf, in 
accepting and executing the provisions of said act ; and 
whereas the other institutions may empower the said trus- 
tees of Union College to perform in behalf of said insti- 
tutions the same acts ; now, therefore, in case all the re- 

oq quisite powers vesting in said institutions jointly, on their 
acceptance of the conditions of said act, shall become ves- 
ted in the trustees of Union College, so as to enable them 
legally to act in the premises, this indenture made the 
twenty-ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, between the said 
trustees of Union College, in their own behalf, and in be- 
half of the other institutions, for which they are now or 
may hereafter be authorized to act, of the first part, and 
Archibald Mclntyre and John B. Yates, of the second part, 

oj witnesseth that the party of the first part, for and in con- 
sideration of the sum of two hundred and seventy-six 

THOUSAND AND NINETY DOLLARS AND FOURTEEN CENTS to them 

in hand paid, or secured to be paid with interest annually, 
and also in consideration of the covenants herein contained, 
doth covenant and agree to transfer to the party of the 
second part, all the right and title of the said party of the 
first part, in their own right, and as legally representing 
the aforesaid institutions, in and to the whole amount of 
tickets at their scheme price, authorized to be sold by vir- 
tue of the act aforesaid. 

And the said party of the second part, for and in con- 
sideration of the covenants herein contained, doth cove- 
nant and agree, in addition to the amount paid or secured 
to be paid as aforesaid, to pay all printing, to provide and 
sign all tickets and to furnish a well lighted room for draw- 
ing the same ; and also to pay, after the drawing of each 
class, all the prize tickets that shall have been drawn there- 
in, whenever the same shall be duly presented for pay- 
ment, pursuant to legal provision and their own contract 
with the holders or owners thereof. 

And whereas tickets have been sold in preceding lotte- 
ries, at an exorbitant profit, the said party of the second 
part stipulate not to sell any tickets required by virtue of this 
contract^ at more than twenty-two per centum advance on the 



32 



scheme price, unless by consent of the president of Union 
College or the board of managers by him appointed, until 
within four days of the drawing of the class in which such 
tickets are contained; and whenever tickets have been 33 
selling for more than four days at any greater advanc, 
such class shall be forthwith drawn. 

And the said party of the second part further covenant, 
?io/- to sell the tickets in any class, unless it be for cash, with- 
out the consent of the treasurer of Union College, to be de- 
posited when received by them, in some bank or banks in 
a separate account, and not to be redrawn therefrom unless 
by consent as aforesaid, except for the purpose of fulfilling 
this contract, and till the same is fulfilled so far as relates 
to each class successively. 

And the said party of the second part further covenant, 
that they will at all times give to the treasurer of Union 
College an opportunity to examine their lottery accounts, 34 
and such other information relative to their situation as 
shall be deemed necessary, to enable him to form his judg- 
ment in relation to the continued responsibility of the said 
party of the second part, and the sufficiency of their se- 
curity for fulfilling this contract; and if the security given 
shall be deemed insufficient after any such examination, 
other security to the satisfaction of the treasurer of Union 
College, shall be forthwith given. It is further agreed be- 
tween the parties aforesaid, in case of the death, disabili- 
ty or failure in business of either of the persons composing 
the party of the second part, that the survivor, in case of the 
death of either, and in case of disability or failure in busi- 35 
ness, the one not so disabled or having so failed in busi- 
ness, shall be solely entitled to all subsequent benefit to be 
derived from this contract: and shall be authorized, on per- 
forming the requisite covenants herein contained, to go on and 
complete its fulfillment on his own account, and for his own 
benefit in the same manner as if the said contract had been 
made by himself solely. 

And it is further understood and stipulated between the 
parties, that this contract shall not become obligatory on 
the party of the first part until the party of the second 
part shall have executed to the party of the first part^ a 
bond with sureties to the satisfaction of the treasurer of Union 36 
College in the penal sum of seventy thousand dollars, condi- 
tioned for the true and faithful performance of the stipula- 
tions contained in this contract, and until the party of the 
second part shall have executed and delivered to the comp- 
troller, such bonds as are required by the act to limit the 
continuance of lotteries, passed as aforesaid. 

And it is further stipulated that all the classes in said 
lottery shall be drawn by or under the direction of the 

2 



10 

board of managers, or such other persons as they shall ap- 
point or approve. The said board of managers to be ap- 
pointed by the president of Union College. In witness 

37 whereof, Henry Yates, Junior, treasurer of Union College, 
in virtue of a resolution hath hereto affixed the common 
seal of the College and signed his name ; and the parties 
of the second part have affixed their seals and signed their 
names. 

(Signed) HENRY YATES, Jun., 
Seal of Treasurer of Union College. 

Union College. (Signed) ARCH'D McINTYRE, 
(Signed) J. B. YATES. 
Duplicate acknowleged by Archibald Mclntyre and John 
B. Yates, in presence of (Signed) 

WILLIAM JAMES. 

38 Having examined the within contract, I consent to and 
approve of the same. 

(Signed.) ELIPHALET NOTT. 

VI. 

Supplement. 

Whereas an agreement has this day been executed by 
the trustees of Union College of the first part, and Archi- 
bald Mclntyre and John B. Yates of the second part — Now 
therefore, this agreement made on the twenty-ninth day 
of July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, be- 

39 tween the aforesaid parties, witnesseth that it was under- 
stood arid agreed between the said parties to the aforesaid 
agreement, to which this agreement is a supplement, and 
is to constitute a part as of one instrument, and it is ex- 
pressly stipulated in this agreement that the said party of 
the second part shall pay, and the said party of the second 
part, do therefore covenant to pay for supervision and man- 
agement, the same per centum on each class immediately after 
the drawino- thereof as has heretofore been paid to managers 
appointed by the Slate, which payment shall be made by 
depositing in the Mohawk Bank, or such other bank as 
may be designated, to the credit of the President of Union 

40 College, such per centum, of which payment the certificate 
of such bank, shall always be a sufficient voucher. 

And it was further understood between the parties, and 
is herein expressly stipulated, that all the tickets to be 
sold by virtue of the act to limit the continuance of lotte- 
ries, are to be divided from time to time into classes of a 
fixed number of tickets at a fixed scheme price, with a fixed 
amount of prizes and a fixed time for drawing the same, 
all which to be done by the consent and approbation of the 
president of Union College, or the board of managers by 



11 

him appointed, which said classes to be denominated class 
No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, &c, of Literature Lotteries, new se- 
ries, and immediately after the execution of the bond by 
the party of the second part to the party of the first part, 41 
as stipulated in the aforesaid agreement, a right shall vest 
in the party of the second part to dispose of tickets calcu- 
lated at their scheme price, to an equal amount with the 
amount of said bond, together with such other and further 
security as may hereafter be given by the party of the se- 
cond part, to the party of the first part, to the satisfaction 
of the treasurer of Union College. And whenever, from 
time to time, the whole or any part of the tickets, the right 
to dispose of which, had vested, as aforesaid in the party 
of the second part, shall have been drawn and the obliga- 
tions arising therefrom, shall have been satisfactorily can- 
celled, or put in a train of being so drawn and cancelled, 42 
a right shall vest in the party of the second part to dispose 
of an additional amount of tickets valued at their scheme 
price equal to the amount of those tickets, the obligations 
arising from which have been satisfactorily cancelled, or 
put in a train of being so cancelled, the same arrangement 
to continue, and the same process to be repeated, until said 
lotteries shall be completed. 

It being, however, understood and expressly stipulated 
betw T een the parties, that no right to dispose of any subse- 
quent amount of tickets-, shall ever vest in the party of the 
second part, until the obligations arising out of the antece- 
dent amount of tickets to which such amount is consequent, 43 
shall have been satisfactorily cancelled, or put in a train of 
being so cancelled, of which the treasurer of Union Col- 
lege shall be the sole and conclusive judge. 

And whereas events may occur that shall prevent the 
party of the second part from paying their note of two hun- 
dred and seventy-six thousand and ninety dollars and 
fourteen cents, given as one of the considerations of this 
agreement, at the time the same is stipulated to be paid : 
It is, therefore, further agreed, that if, before the end of the 
year eighteen hundred and twenty-three, the said party of 
the second part shall elect to pay said note in annual in- 
stallments of thirty-nine thousand three hundred and twelve 
dollars, commencing from the day the interest Commenced 44 
on said note, and continuing until said note shall be fully 
paid, said party shall be allowed to do so. In which 
event, said party shall immediately after the drawing of 
each class deposit to the credit, of the treasurer of Union Col- 
lege, for safe keeping in the Manhattan Bank, or such other 
bank as may be by him designated, such part of the afore- 
said annual payment, as shall bear the same proportion to 
the whole annual payment, as the amount of tickets in said 



12 

class reckoned at their scheme price, shall bear to four 
hundred fori y-nine thousand two hundred and eighty dollars*, 
a certificate of which deposit shall be sufficient evidence of 
the receipt thereof by the treasurer aforesaid, and the 
amount of the several receipts, shall on the last day of 

45 every year, reckoned as aforesaid, be endorsed ; or if not 
endorsed, shall have the effect of an endorsement to the 
amount thereof on the aforesaid note. 

But it is understood between the parties, that if less than 
four hundred and forty-nine thousand two hundred and 
eighty dollars worth of tickets, reckoned at their scheme 
price, shall be drawn in any one year, then less in propor- 
tion may be deposited in the bank to the credit of the said 
treasurer. But it is expressly stipulated between the par- 
ties, that if less shall in any one year be deposited than the 
sum of thirty-nine thousand three hundred and twelve 
dollars, the deficit together with the interest thereon, from 
the time when it was payable, shall be added to the in- 
stallment of the ensuing year ; and if less shall again be 

46 deposited than the above sum, together with the deficit of 
the preceding year, the balance, with the interest as above, 
shall again be added and made up and endorsed as afore- 
said. 

It being, however, further understood and expressly 
stipulated, that at the end of any year in which there shall 
be a deficit in the sum stipulated to be deposited, or in the 
deposit of the per centum, for supervision and manage- 
ment as aforesaid, the treasurer of Union College shall be 
at liberty, previous to the adopting of the scheme for any 
subsequent year, to give notice to the party of the second 
part, that this agreement has become forfeited, and from that 

47 time forth, the parties shall no longer be allowed to act 
under it, except so far as to close the business already 
commenced, and to settle their accounts ; and if at the 
time such notice is given, any scheme or schemes shall 
have already been adopted by consent and approbation as 
aforesaid, the same shall be drawn, (except by the consent 
of the parties,) within the time specified in such scheme. 

And it is further stipulated, that the said party of the 
second part, may at any time anticipate the payment of 
the stipulated annual payments as aforesaid, by depositing 
the same to the credit of the treasurer of Union College, as 
aforesaid, on or before the first day of the year, commencing 
43 as aforesaid, in which year such payment would otherwise be 
made, in which case, a rebate in the amount shall be made 
equal to the amount of interest that would accrue on such 
payment, during the whole time the same is anticipated, 
except six months ; and though such rebatement be made 
in the deposit, the full sum of thirty-nine thousand three 



13 

hundred and twelve dollars shall be endorsed therefor, 
on the aforesaid original note at the close of the year, 
reckoning as aforesaid, in which the same would other- 
wise have been fully deposited, or if not so endorsed, the 
deposit shall have the effect of such endorsement. 

And it is further stipulated by the party of the second 
part, to sell on the first four days of sale, in each class, at 49 
the scheme price to adventurers, and to the several licens- 
ed lottery dealers in such proportions as may appear dis- 
creet, and to such amount as may be required, except that 
the said party of the second part, may always retain one- 
third part of each class for their own use, and such other 
and larger proportion as may from time to time, be con 
sented to either by the president of Union College, or by 
the board of managers appointed as aforesaid. In witness 
whereof, Henry Yates, Jan., treasurer of Union College, 
hath hereto affixed the common seal of Union College, and 
signed his name in virtue of a resolution; and the parties 
of the second part, have affixed their seals and signed their 
names. 50 

(Signed) HENRY YATES, Jun., 
Seal of Treasurer of Union College. 

Union College. (Signed) ARCHIBALD McINTYRE. 
(Signed) J. B. YATES. 

Interlineations being made before execution, and all 
acknowledged in my presence by Archibald Mclntyre and 
John B. Yates. 

(Signed) Wm. JAMES. 

Having examined the above contract, I consent to and 
approve of the same. 

(Signed) ELIPHALET NOTT. 



VII. 



51 



Contract between the Trustees of Hamilton College and the 
Trustees of Union College. 

This indenture, made this twelfth day of October, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 
two, between the trustees of Hamilton College, of the one 
part, and the trustees of Union College, in the town of 
Schenectady and state of New-York, of the other part, 
witnesseth : — 

Whereas by an act of the legislature, entitled "An act in- 
stituting a lottery for the promotion of literature and for other 
purposes," passed April 13, 1814, it was enacted, that out of 
the avails of the lottery by the said act instituted, the sum of 52 
forty thousand dollars should be appropriated to the said 
trustees of Hamilton College, together with the simple inter- 
est accruing thereon, till the same should be raised and paid: 
provided, that no payment should be made of interest ac- 



14 

cruing on said appropriation for more than six years from 
the time of passing the said act. And whereas by a subse- 
quent act of the legislature, passed April 5, 1822, it was 
enacted that it should be lawful for the public institutions, 
to which the monies to be raised by the said lottery, by vir- 
tue of the act first heretofore mentioned, were appropriated, 

53 to assume conjointly, or to appoint one of their number to 
assume the supervision and direction of the said lottery, 
and to receive the avails and hazard the losses, and be re- 
sponsible for the payment of the prizes of said lottery, for 
a limited time, in lieu thereof, and as an equivalent for, 
the several specific grants to them therein made. And 
whereas it has been agreed between the parties of these 
presents, that the trustees of Hamilton College shall trans- 
fer all their interest in the said lottery instituted fur the 
promotion of literature, amounting to forty-four thousand 
four hundred and seventy-two dollars, to the trustees of 
Union College upon the terms and conditions hereinafter 

54 particularly mentioned. 

Now therefore, this indenture witnesseth. That for and in 
consideration of the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, to 
them in hand paid, or secured to be paid to the trustees of 
Hamilton College, by the trustees of Union College, and 
in consideration of the further covenants hereinafter con- 
tained, they, the said trustees of Hamilton College, have 
bargained, sold, assigned, tranferred and set over, and by 
these presents do for themselves and their successors, bar 
gain, sell, assign, transfer and set over, unto the said trus- 
tees of Union College, all and singular their right, title, in- 
terest, property, claim and demand, in and to the said lot- 
tery instituted by the said act entitled "An act instituting 

55 a lottery for the promotion of literature and for other pur- 
poses," passed April 13th, 1814, and in and to the avails 
thereof, and any monies to be raised thereby and appro- 
priated to the trustees of Hamilton College, to have, hold, 
take, receive, and enjoy the same, with all and singular 
the i enefits and advantages to be derived therefrom, unto 
the said trustees of Union College, their surcessors and as- 
signs, and for their only proper use, benefit and behoof. 
And the said trustees of Hamilton College, do hereby make, 
constitute and appoint the trustees of Union College afore- 
said, their true and lawful agents and attorneys, for them, 
and in their name, place, and stead, to accept (in writing) 

56 of the conditions and provisions contained in the said act 
entitled "An act to limit the continuance of lotteries," 
passed April 5th, 1822, in lieu of, and as an equivalent for, 
the grant to them made as aforesaid in the said lottery, and 
to file such acceptance in the office of the secretary of this 
state, and to do all other acts, and matters, and things, 



15 

whatsoever, in relation to the said lottery, as fully, to all 
intents and purposes, as the trustees of Hamilton College 
might or could do, according to the provisions of the afore- 
said act, entitled a An act to limit the continuance of lot- 
teries," or as if the said grant to Hamilton College, con- 
tained in the act entitled "An act instituting a lottery for 
the promotion of literature and for other purposes," had 57 
originally been made to the trustees of Union College. 

And the said trustees of Hamilton College, do hereby 
for themselves, and their successors, covenant, promise and 
agree, to and with the said trustees of Union College, that 
they and their successors will, at any time hereafter, on 
the reasonable request of the trustees of Union College, 
their successors or assigns, execute (to be filed in the office 
of the secretary of this state) any certificate which may be 
lawfully required of them, to signify their acceptance of 
the provisions contained in the said act entitled "An act 
to limit the continuance of lotteries," in lieu of, and as an 
equivalent for, the grants to them made as aforesaid, in 
the said lottery. And further, that they and their succes- 58 
sors will, at any time hereafter, on the like reasonable re- 
quest, duly execute and deliver all, and every such other 
and further deeds, conveyances and assurances in the law 
whatsoever, as may be lawfully required for the further 
and better, and more effectually transferring, assigning or 
confirming all their right, title and interest in the said lot- 
tery and the avails thereof, to the trustees of Union Col- 
lege, their successors and assigns, according to the true in- 
tent and meaning of these presents. 

And the trustees of Union College, in consideration of 
the aforesaid sale, transfer and assignment by the trustees 
of Hamilton College, of their right, interest and claim, to 59 
the avails of the said lottery, to the said trustees of Union 
College, have agreed, and do agree and covenant to pay to 
the said trustees of Hamilton College, the sum of thirty- 
three thousand three hundred and fifty-four dollars and 
fifty-three cents, with interest from the ninth day of April, 
in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, 
which payment is to be made as follows : three thousand 
dollars to be deposited in the New-York State Bank, in 
Albany, to the credit of Erastus Clark, on or before the 
first day of November next, and seven thousand dollars to 
be deposited in like manner, at the New-York State Bank, 
in sums of not less than one thousand dollars at a time, 60 
before the twelfth day of February next, and a certificate 
of each such deposite, to be sent said Clark by mail im- 
mediately thereafter. 

And the sum of eighteen thousand three hundred fifty- 
four dollars and fifty -three cents, to be secured said trus- 



16 

• 
tees of Hamilton College, by the note of the Rev. Eliphalet 
Nott, and Henry Yates, Jun.,Esq., guaranteed by William 
James, Esq., of Albany, payable within four years from 
the date hereof, with interest, from the ninth day of April 
last past, payable annually on the twelfth day of October, 
in each year : and also to secure the sum of five thousand 
dollars, by the joint note of said Eliphalet Nott and Wil- 
liam James, to said Erastus Clark or order, payable at the 
Mohawk Bank, with interest, in three years from the date 
hereof. And to pay the residue of said sum of thirty- 

61 three thousand three hundred and fifty-four dollars and 
fifty-three cents, with interest, from the ninth day of April 
last past, to the said trustees of Hamilton College, in four 
years from the date hereof. All the money which shall be 
received on the said several notes of Eliphalet Nott and 
Henry Yates, and of said Eliphalet Nott and William 
James, and also the money to be deposited in the New- 
York State Bank, as aforesaid, to be received as part per- 
formance of the covenants herein contained, to be perform- 
ed by the trustees of Union College, and to be allowed and 
endorsed upon this agreement. 

And the trustees of Union College covenant and agree 
with the trustees of Hamilton College, that whatever shall 

62 be received by the said trustees of Union College from the 
supervision and management of the said lottery, over and 
above the expense incurred by them therein, shall be and 
remain a contingent fund for the meeting of losses, should 
any occur : the whole remainder of the sums so received 
for supervision and management, shall be divided between 
the said colleges pro rata, or according to the interest they 
had respectively at the time of signing this contract, or 
may thereafter have acquired. And the trustees of Union 
College w 7 ill indemnify and save harmless the said trustees 
of Hamilton College from any loss or damage, by reason 
of the conducting or managing said lottery. And the said 

63 trustees of Hamilton College, further covenant and agree, 
duly and fully to indemnify and save harmless, the trus- 
tees of Union College, from all payment or loss to be by 
them sustained, on account of any lien or claim, the state 
may acquire, or have acquired by virtue of an act entitled 
"An act for the relief of Hamilton College," passed March 
18th, 1817, on any part of the original appropriation in 
said lottery made to Hamilton College, which appropria- 
tion has been herein fully and without any reservation, 
transferred to the trustees of Union College, as the same 
existed on the 9th of April last, after deducting eight hun- 
dred and seven dollars, since received from the comptroller 

64 by the trustees of Hamilton College. 



17 

In testimony whereof, the said trustees of Hamilton Col- 
lege and the said trustees of Union College have caus- 
ed their respective seals to be hereunto interchangea- 
bly set and affixed, the day and year first above writ- 
ten. 

[l. s.] By Henry Yates, Junr., Treasurer of Union 
College. 

Approved by Eliphalet Nott. 
[l. s.J I certify the above to be a true copy of the 

original, deposited in the archives of Hamil- 65 
ton county. 

BENJAMIN W. DWIGHT, 
Treasurer of Hamilton College. 
Clinton, August 13, 1834. 

VIII. 

Extracts from the correspondence with Hamilton College. 

To B. W. Dwight, Esq., Treasurer of Hamilton College: 

Dear sir — Yours of the 26th Nov. was received during 
the absence of the President ot Union College to whom it gg 
was addressed. Since his return an earlier meeting of 
this committee has been prevented by sickness and other 
unavoidable occurrences. 

In reply to your communication we beg leave to make a 
brief statement of facts. 

The amount due to the several institutions from the lite- 
rature lottery was $322,256.81. Union College borrowed 
funds, and bought out all the other parties in interest. By 
the original indenture of Yates and Mclntyre, to whom 
its entire interest was sold, said College was (if paid in 
advance, and thus protected against loss, as the other in- 
stitutions had been) to receive $276,090.14, estimated with ^ 
interest by Yates and Mclntyre in a bill subsequently filed 
against the trustees at $393,120. In the execution of this 
indenture, however, they met with losses, and became re- 
duced to the verge of ruin. 

To prevent their failure, the President of Union College 
raised funds for them to a large amount, in consideration 
of which, Jan. 24th, 1826, they stipulated to vary the 
terms of their original indenture, so as to require the pay- 
ment of eleven per cent on $4,492,208 worth of tickets, a 
supposed contingent residue of $456,389 worth to remain 
subject to a new contract. Soon after this an act was 
passed authorising the mixing of the Albany land lottery gg 
with the Literature and Fever Hospital lotteries. To ena- 
ble Yates and Mclntyre to execute a contract under said 
act, they applied to Dr. Nott for his consent and co-opera- 

3 



18 

tion, stipulating May 31st, 1826, in consideration thereof^ 
after having drawn all the tickets then supposed to belong 
to the literature lottery, including the contingent residue, 
and after having also drawn a certain amount of tickets in 
the Fever Hospital lottery, (the drawing of which was in- 

69 hibited by law till the drawing of the literature lottery was 
finished) to pay to him a certain per centage on all the 
subsequent classes drawn ; under this stipulation, how- 
ever, no classes were ever drawn, or per centage paid. 

After the whole of the $4,948,597 worth of tickets as- 
sumed to belong to the literature lottery, including the 
supposed contingent residue, had been drawn, and the 
drawing of the Fever Hospital lottery commenced, a set- 
tlement was effected with Yates and Mclntyre, to wit : on 
the first of August, 1828, under their original indenture, 
as modified by their stipulation of Jan. 24, and May 31, 
1826, in which Yates and Mclntyre agreed not only to pay 

70 the per centage due to the College under their original in- 
denture on the whole amount of tickets then supposed to 
have belonged to the literature lottery, but also to pay the 
additional amount stipulated to be paid Jan. 24, 1826, for 
moneys advanced by the president to enable them to meet 
the payment of certain prizes. 

Yates and Mclntyre, after commencing the drawing of 
the Fever Hospital lottery still continuing embarrassed, 
applied repeatedly to Dr. Nott for pecuniary assistance to 
very large amounts, for which they stipulated to pay a 
certain per centage on the tickets thereafter to be drawn, 

71 which per centage after being paid for some time, was ulti- 
mately refused. For the recovery of which Dr. Nott filed 
a bill in chancery, in which the trustees of Union College, 
without their consent, or even knowledge, were joined as 
plaintiff's. 

And the trustees of Union College then supposing that 
the whole of the $4,948,597 worth of tickets, on which 
Yates and Mclntyre had stipulated to pay per centage, ac- 
tually belonged to said lottery, and of course supposing 
that there was a contingent residue, as stated in the stipu- 
lation of 24th of January, 1826, and that said college had, 

72 in consequence, an interest in tickets drawn long after 
their treasurer, Henry Yates, became a partner in the said 
firm, directed a bill to be filed in chancery for the reco- 
very of his portion of profits arising therefrom. 

To the bill filed by Dr. Nott, Yates & Mclntyre demur- 
red on the ground that the stipulation was entered into 
with him after the literature lottery was closed, and that 
the same was for personal advances, services and hazards 
only in which the college had no interest, which was, in- 
deed, the case. 



19 

And the lottery question having been referred to the At- 73 
torney General (See Ass. Doc. Vol. 4, p. 10,) by the Leg- 
islature, he reported that the whole amount of tickets con- 
tained in the literature lottery, in place of being $4,948,- 
597 worth, as had been supposed, was only $3,693,800 
worth, making a difference of $1,254,797 worth of tickets 
in the lottery, and of $138,027 in the amount of percentage 
to have been paid by Yates & Mclntyre. Whereupon 
Yates & Mclntyre filed a bill in chancery for the recovery of 
this excess of per centage, claimed to have been paid in error. 

After considering tlie report of the Attorney General, 74 
and perceiving if said lotteries contained only $3,693,800 
worth of tickets, that there was no contingent residue when 
the stipulation of the 24th Jan., 1826, was entered into, 
and of course that the stipulation of May 31, predicated 
on such residue, must be invalid, and perceiving also that 
little if anything could be recovered of Henry Yates, as 
in that case the literature lottery closed soon after the part- 
nership commenced, a negotiation was, by advice of coun- 
sel, opened with a view to effect an amicable settlement, 
and thus prevent a protracted and expensive litigation, 75 
when it was found that Yates & Mclntyre would, on their 
part, agree to cancel their entire claim against Union Col- 
lege for all payments made in error, provided the college 
would surrender to them certain evidences of debt amount- 
ing to $126,037.57, and further, that they would agree to 
pay $150,000 in itn years, in installments, provided the 
claim against them for the payment of percentage under 
their stipulation entered into July 15th, 1830, with Dr. 
Nott, for personal advances, hazards, &c, was cancelled, 
and it was also found that Dr. Nott would, on his part, also 76 
agree to cancel said stipulation on said terms : 

Whereupon an article of agreement was entered into be- 
tween the trustees of Union College and the president, set- 
ting forth that the $150,000 to be received from Yates & 
Mclntyre, was to be received on account of the stipulation 
aforesaid entered into with him for personal advances, &c, 
and for the recovery of which said suit had been com- 
menced, and that the same was to be accounted for to him 
on a final settlement. 

After which a tripartite agreement, on the conditions 77 
above set forth, was entered into between Yates & Mcln- 
tyre, the Trustees of Union College, and the President of 
Union College, in which the parties severally agreed, not 
only to discontinue the suits which had been commenced, 
but also to relinquish all cause of future suits, arising out 
of said lottery transactions. 

Thus the amount realized by Union College from the 
College fund, up to the present day, falls short in place of 



20 

exceeding, as you suppose, the amount actually due under 
the original indenture. Nor will the amount to be realized 

78 hereafter, ever exceed the amount so due, even though all 
the evidences of debt received from Yates & Mclntyre, 
should eventually be paid. And in place of having re- 
ceived from the imaginary contingent residue to which you 
allude, the sums stated, or any part thereof, Union College 
has been required to refund, and has actually refunded 
$126,037.57 of per centage paid on tickets claimed to have 
been drawn in error, over and above what the law allowed, 
irrespective of such contingent residue. 

In reference to the 2| per cent, on the tickets of the litera- 

79 ture lottery , set apart by Union College in the contract with 
Yates & Mclntyre, for supervision and management, and 
set apart in like manner in the subsequent contract with 
Hamilton College, the same being the compensation pre- 
viously allowed therefor by law, referred to in your letter, 
as the President's fund, and estimated at about $122,000, 
the undersigned remark that according to the aforesaid cal- 
culations of the Attorney-General, in accordance with 
which the aforesaid bill of Yates & Mclntyre, was framed, 
and the aforesaid settlement made, the whole amount of 

80 tickets authorised to be drawn in said lottery, and of course 
the whole amount on which 2 \ per cent, could be lawfully 
reckoned, was $3,693,800 worth, on which sum said per 
centage amounts to $83,210.50, and no more. 

The president of Union College having by great personal 
exertion and at great personal peril, (in which no other 
trustee was found willing to participate, and which all con- 
sidered in him rash and even presumptuous,) succeeded in 
sustaining the credit of Yates & Mclntyre till the entire 
literature lottery was drawn, and having also succeeded in 

81 securing from said lottery after paying all expenses, a con- 
siderable surplus to be divided between the colleges, it was 
felt that Union College, whose interest had been so gratu- 
itously and greatly promoted by hazards assumed by him 
in its own behalf, would therefore come forward with an 
ill grace to claim a share in the avails, if any there should 
be, of hazards subsequently assumed by him in behalf of 
others. And however frequently the trustees of Union 
College may have expressed their sense of the indebtedness 
of said college to its president for his interference as afore- 

82 said, still they deem it proper distinctly to state, that they 
have neither received, nor claimed to be entitled to re- 
ceive, the compensation stipulated to be paid, either to the 
president of said college in the form of per centage for 
monies advanced or hazards run by him in behalf of Yates 
& Mclntyre, or to be entitled to receive the compensation 
stipulated to be paid to the late treasurer of Union College 



21 

in the form of profit sas co-partner in said firm after the draw* 
ing of the Literature lottery had ceased, and that of the Fever 
Hospital lottery had commenced ; and whatever claim said 
trustees might have had to the comparative small amount 83 
of profits arising previously thereto was relinquished by 
them on the final settlement aforesaid, in order to put an 
end to litigation. 

Nor can the undersigned even now perceive, particularly 
since no contingent residue existed as has been supposed, 
on what grounds of either law or equity Union College 
could have sustained a claim to compensation received by 
any individual or individuals, however related to said in- 
stitution, for personal advances made, hazards run, or ser- 
vices performed, to facilitate the commencement or further 84 
the progress, and to be paid out of the avails of a lottery 
in which said college had no interest, over which it exer- 
cised no control, and the commencement of the drawing 
of which was inhibited by law, till all the tickets in the 
Literature lottery, in which alone said college was inter- 
ested, were drawn. Be this however as it may, rather 
than submit to the evils of a protracted litigation, Union 
College was willing to secure, even at a sacrifice, the bene- 
fits of an immediate and amicable settlement ; and the 
more so as its own rights were the rights chiefly affected 85 
thereby. For of the whole $126,037.57 refunded to Yates 
k Mclntyre, only $20,394.19, or thereabouts, were claimed 
by Yates & Mclntyre to be due from the fund for supervi- 
sion and management, which was the only fund in the 
judgment of the undersigned, in which Hamilton College 
in any event could have had <n interest. And this for the 
obvious reason that such was the original understanding 
between the two colleges, as appears from previous legal 
provisions, from the express terms of the contract itself, 86 
and from the documentary evidence in the possession of 
the undersigned, as w T ell as from the testimony of the liv- 
ing witnesses to that transaction who still remain. 

What losses have already occurred or may hereafter oc- 
cur, in consequence of the change of the times, the failure 
of individuals, and the depression of real estate, or what 
the ultimate profits to be realized by either the president, 
or the late treasurer of Union College, for advances made, 
hazards run, or services rendered in behalf of Yates & 86 
Mclntyre, after the drawing of the literature lottery closed, 
are questions concerning which the undersigned are not 
informed, and over which they do not claim to have any 
control. And they have therefore only to add, that so far 
as any funds have been already or may ever hereafter be 
received, in which the colleges are interested, the under- 
signed are prepared to effect an immediate settlement ; and 



88 



22 

for that purpose will meet the committee of Hamilton 
87 College at such time as may suit its convenience. 
In behalf of the finance committee. 

Very respectfully, yours, &c. 

J. P. CUSHMAN. 
A. C. PAIGE. 
Schenectady, Feb. 23, 1840. 
To. B. W. D wight, Esq., 

Treasurer Hamilton College. 

IX. 

New- York, January 4th, 1826. 
Rev. E. Nott, President of Union College : 

Sir — We have stipulated, as you are aware, to pay to 
the trustees of Union College, the sum of two hundred and 
seventy-six thousand dollars, within ten years, with inter- 
est annually, for and in consideration of their transferring 
to us their right in and to the grants made by the act to 
limit the continuance of lotteries. It has become neces- 
sary that we should inform you that, such have been our 
losses, that we have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay 
the sum stipulated, or even to pay the prizes in the lottery 

gg now pending, unless we ccn procure immediate pecuniary as- 
sistance to a large amount. If such assistance can be pro- 
cured, we are confident that we shall be able to fulfil our 
contract with the college and save ourselves harmless. 

In view of these circumstances, we have thought it our 
duty to propose that you and the treasurer should raise for 
our immediate relief one hundred thousand dollars, to- 
gether with such further sum as may be necessary to sus- 
tain our credit, until we can be fully relieved, by convert- 
ing our property into money, and collecting the amounts 

9Q due to us, which are still good, but merely delayed in con- 
sequence of the general pressure. And in consideration 
thereof we are willing to stipulate to pay you such an addi- 
tional sum as shall, together with the $276,000, for which we 
admit that we are now holden, amount to eleven per cent, 
on the whole amount of tickets sold, or to be sold, by us, 
under said act ; the same to be paid estimating the per 
centum on the tickets sold at their scheme price in each 
class, and in all the classes hitherto drawn, as well as 
those hereafter to be drawn, under said act, immediately 
after the drawing thereof. 

With respect, we are, 

oi your obedient servants, 

YATES & McINTYRE. 



X. 

J. B. YATES TO E. NOTT. 

New-York, Jan?y 11th, 1826. 

Dear Sir — Your letter, with the cheek for the sum of 
$345, has been duly received. The package on which you 
have thus paid the difference between its selling scheme 
price and the least sum it must draw, contains the follow- 
ing Nos. — Com. 14 19; reg. 100 — com. 2 3 12; reg. 955 — 
com. 5 9 41 ; r. 3,676— c. 6 14 18 ; r. 4,559— c. 7 15 33 ; 
r. 5,307— c. 8 11 16; r. 5,830— c. 10 14 20 ; r. 7,155— c. 
17 21 30 ; r. 10,623— c. 22 38 39 ; r. 12,392— c. 23 31 40 ; 
r. 12,554—24 27 44 ; 12,906—25 32 42 ; 12,969—26 36 37 ; 92 
13,177—28 29 43; 13,388—34 35 45; 13,980. No. of the 
package, 727. 

Our prospects, since our return, have somewhat brightened. 
The Washington and Con't. class have turned out well, 
and if we should have any luck like it in our r ew- York 
class, we will not need to use the paper ; but on that I 
build nothing. All the present feeling is, that we have 
now no doubt remaining, that, eventually, our friends, and 
the institutions, will be safe, let the worst come that may, 
and if our credit shall be fully sustained, of which I now ™ 
entertain no fears, even if the money should not be obtain- 
ed on the papers with Mr. James' endorsement. With re- 
gard to the stipulation and explanation you name, that shall 
be done. It is immaterial now whether we want the aid we 
asked or not. It has passed from us by promise. It is no 
more our right. I looked over the memorandum you gave 
my brother, with Mr. Mclntyre. We see nothing in it 
wrong, and will write an agreement pursuant to its direc- 
tions. We have some thought of not attempting to nego- Q . 
tiate the notes of Mr. J's. if it should be requisite, after the 
drawing until towards the close of the 40 days, in which 
the prizes are payable by us. 

Yours truly, J. B. YATES. 

P. S. I perceive you have inadvertently written your 
letter on the back of your draft. Of course, it can not be 
used. We will charge you with the money, and you can, 
if you wish, hand it to brother Henry, when he returns. 
The draft I have cancelled by drawing my pen across it, 
and your name. 



24 

XL 
95 

[Grateful for assistance— presence of H. Yates requested— larger allowance 
to contractors suggested — sends draft of land bill.'] 

New- York, Jan'y 23, 1826. 

Rev. and Dear Sir — I cannot omit, on the return of Mr. 
H. Yates, to express to you my very grateful sense of our 
obligations to you for the prompt relief you have afforded us 
in the hour of our difficulty and distress. We were, it cannot 
be denied, on the very verge of ruin, and I am now, thank 
heaven, (if the Union Canal Lottery afford us the least 
sum we have calculated on realising from it,) enabled to 

96 believe that we are safe, if we pursue a uniform and pru- 
dent course, which I think we are fully prepared to do. 
We have had a lesson sufficiently appalling and distress- 
ing, to keep us in very constant remembrance of it during 
life. 

As, however, I am, more than ever, sensible of the frail- 
ty of human nature 3 and the uncertainty of all earthly cal- 
culations, I am anxious, above all things in this world, to 
get through with our present engagements without ruin to 
ourselves and our friends ; and I have thought that the 

97 presence and advice of Mr. Henry Yates here, for as much of 
his time as he could possibly spare, with us, might be use- 
ful. He has consented to come, and we shall provide as 
liberally as we can for his sacrifice. Perhaps you too can, 
with propriety, make him an allowance on account ot the 

INCREASED SAFETY TO THE COLLEGE. 

The very extraordinary change of times within the last 
four months, affecting our business as much, if not more, 
than any other, added to recent losses, and the opposition 
which has sprung up, can not but alarm us, with the heavy 

98 engagements we have on our hands. I am, therefore, on 
the constant look out, where something may be saved, 
where, by some modification or change of contracts, some- 
thing may be made, and our ultimate safety be increased. 
I have thought, and take, therefore, the liberty of suggest- 
ing for your consideration, whether it would not be for the 
safety and interest of the college to make us a more liberal 
allowance than is now made us. Four per cent on the 
schemes, when all the tickets are sold and paid for, affords 
a good profit, I acknowledge— but really that allowance is 

99 not sufficient to indemnify for the risks that we are compel- 
led to run. Were you to allow us 6 per cent instead of 4, we 
could afford to run off all your schemes in less than two years. 
Would not, then, the saving of interest on the capital to 
be produced for the college, and the increased security to 
it by the success of our operations, be sufhcent inducement 
$o you, on behalf of the institution, to give a favorable ear 



25 

to my suggestions. You are to judge of it, and I only now 
pray for your serious attention to the subject. 

I have sent to the recorder of Albany, a bill relative to 
the Albany land lottery, and Mr Yates will deliver you a 100 
copy of it. I need not inform you of the importance of 
that subject. It will require your watchful attention, and 
I trust that nothing will prevent your keeping it in con- 
stant view during its progress. 

I am, Rev dear sir, 

With very sincere respect, 
Your most obedient servant, 

ARCH. McINTYRE. 
Rev. Eliphalet Nott, D. D. 

XII. 
J. B. Yates to E. Nott. 

[Under anxious apprehension — drawing disastrous — not yet insolvent, nor will 
be if sustained — whether anything further in E. N. : s power — presence of H. 

New- York, January 23, 1826. 101 
Dear Sir : Since my visit to Schenectady, my mind 
has been in a very perturbed state, in consequence of my 
anxious apprehension for ourselves and our friends. The 
lottery of New-York has proved as disastrous to us as we 
would have anticipated by the drawing, yet the result of 
the Washington and Connecticut class, drawn in Washing- 
ton, was so much better than we expected, that the two 
together have not much disappointed us. On reviewing 
our situation, it is evident that we are not insolvent. 
We have determined on not paying our prizes until they 102 
are due, which will throw us beyond the Philadelphia 
drawing ; after which we may know with some degree of 
certainty, what will be our situation on a view of the whole 
ground. In the meanwhile, we will use as little of the 
paper of Mr. James as we can do with. As yet, we have 
need of none of it. I am satisfied, if we are sustained 
for six months, or, at the furthest for one year, we can save 
our friends, the college, and our reputations. Our golden 
dreams, for ourselves, have vanished, and with them, all the 
imagined good I thought of doing with it. Still, a com- 103 
fortable competency is far from hopeless. 1 do not know 
what further you may have in your power, should it become 
requisite. On mature reflection, I am convinced that our 
safety requires that I should go south, if we continue op- 
erating ; and in that event, I know the presence of my 

BROTHER AS TREASURER OF THE COLLEGE, during the whole 

time, to see to things and aid with all the energy he possesses, 
is positively necessary for a variety of reasons. You may 
not think yourself authorized to make him a sufficient al- 
lowance from the contingent expense fund, to enable him 104 

4 



26 

to come down ; but allow him as much as you think you 
can with justice, and we will add enough to save him 
harmless, at least. We not only want him here, a while, 
but all the time, and to be actively engaged supervising 
and aiding in the detailed direction of our affairs. Mr. 
Mcln. and I must now, necessarily, both be often and long 
absent, and often unexpectedly, and we will need his active 
aid, besides the beneficial public effect it would have, that he is 
known to be here as the treasurer of the college. I wish it 

105 were possible for you to accompany him when he comes 
down again, to see and judge of the full state of our affairs. 

With respect, I am yours, &c, 

J. B. YATES. 

XIII. 

Whereas an indenture was made on the 29th of July, 
1822, between the trustees of Union College, of the first 
part, and Archibald Mclntyre and John B. Yates, of the 
second part, together with a supplement made on the same 
day, and forming, together, one whole contract ; and 
whereas it was found to be impossible for the party of the 
second part to procure, at the time, securities to the amount, 

106 and: of the kind originally contemplated ; and whereas the 
best interest of the college required that no farther delay 
should take place in the drawing of the lotteries, it was 
verbally admitted, by the party of the first part, that the 
party of the second part might proceed, for the time being, 
on such security as was given, which relaxation, it was 
supposed, would promote the interests of both the parties, 
by expediting the progress of the lottery. And as it has 
been agreed that the terms of payment should, in conse- 
quence of such relaxation, be more favorable to the college, 

107 to prevent any future doubt or dispute concerning the im- 
port of the written contract, it is hereby mutually stipula- 
ted and declared, that the real payments to be made to the 
party of the first part, by the party of the second part, is 
eleven per centum on each class drawn, viz, eight and three- 
quarters per centum to the treasurer of Union College, and 
two and one quarter per centum to the president of the 
eollege ; the same to be made immediately after the drawing 
of each class, by deposits in banks as agreed on, until four 
million four hundred and ninety-two thousand two hun- 

108 dred and eight dollars worth of tickets, reckoned at the 
selling scheme price, shall have been drawn, when this 
whole written contract will have been cancelled ; and the 
rebate of interest spoken of in the supplement, to have effect 
only in cases where the said eleven per centum shall have 
been paid before the drawing of the classes out of which the 
same is to arise. 



110 



27 

The contingent residue of the lottery to be the subject 
of a new contract, the terms of which have been already 
discussed and verbally settled between the parties. 

ARCHIBALD McINTYRE, 
J. B. YATES. 109 

New- York, January 24, 1826. 

XIV. 

New-York, May 31 st, 1826. 
To Dr. E. Nott, 

Rev. Sir — Having made a contract for the drawing of 
the lottery under the act entitled, "An act to enable the 
mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of Albany, 
to dispose of tickets in a lottery heretofore granted, and to 
limit the continuance of the same, passed A.pril 13, 1826;" 
and being desirous to mix the tickets of the same with the 
tickets in the lotteries authorised by the act to limit the 
continuance of lotteries, on condition that you will con- 
sent thereto : We stipulate, that after having drawn, for 
the college, 2,004,099 dollars worth of tickets, reckoned at 
their scheme price, at the present stipulated rate of draw- 
ing and payments; and 1,654,497 dollars worth of tickets, 
reckoned at the same rate, for our benefit, as the assignees 
of the Fever Hospital Lottery — to deposit to your credit, 
in such bank as you shall designate, six and thirty-one 
hundreth per centum on the gross amount of money prizes , , , 
in each scheme or class, immediately after the drawing of 
the same, so long as we shall be permitted to continue to oper- 
ate under said act of 13th April, 1826, or any future act 
that may be obtained, modifying the principle therein con- 
tained. It being understood that the annual average rate 
of drawing the money tickets shall not be, hereafter, less 
than it has heretofore been, unless prevented by unavoida- 
ble necessity, satisfactory to yourself, or by mutual consent. 
The schemes of all classes to be hereafter drawn, when 
made out, to be regularly transmitted to you. 

YATES & McINTYRE. 

XV. 

YATES AND MCINTYRE TO THE TREASURER OF UNION COLLEGE. 

[Asking consent to mixing prizes.] 

New- York, June 2d, 1826. 
To Henry Yates, Esq., Treasurer of Union College. 

Sir — We have, pursuant to the terms of a law of last 
winter, a copy of which you have received, made a con- 
tract with the corporation of the city of Albany, to pay 
them the entire amount of the valuation of their lands, 
equal to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in five 



112 



28 

equal annual payments, with the power to mingle them 
with the money prizes of the lotteries yet to be drawn ; and 
to commence as soon as convenient, if the literary institu- 

113 tions, interested in the grant, shall consent thereto. You 
will, therefore, perceive that we have taken the entire 
burthen of this load upon ourselves, together with all the 
hazards attending it. We believe this measure was neces- 
sary from every consideration of policy, and for the pur- 
pose of conciliating the good feelings of the citizens of Al- 
bany. We have asked from them no compensation arising 
from any sacrifice of their lands for our benefit. 

We will continue to perform the terms of our engage- 
ment with you in the same manner as heretofore, as assidu- 

114 ously as shall be in our power, and have no doubt that we 
can and will conduct the business without any disadvan- 
tage to the institutions. 

In order, therefore, that we may commence our opera- 
tions under the contract with the corporation of Albany, 
as soon as convenience will warrant, we ask from the liter- 
ary institutions, their assent to the mixing the land prizes 
with the money prizes of the lotteries we are now conduct- 
ing under our contract with them. 

You will perceive by the law, that the person having 
the supervision and direction of those lotteries must con- 

115 sent. This, we believe, is the president of Union College. 
Will you hand to him this application, which we make to 
you as treasurer of that institution, to whom we consider 
it ought to be officially addressed. 

Yours respectfully, 

ARCHIBALD McINTYRE, 
J. B. YATES. 

XVI. 

E. NOTT TO YATES AND MCINTYRE. 

[Accepts on his own behalf, the terms of the second written stipulation.] 

Union College, Jane 10th, 1826. 
Gentlemen — To the written propositions submitted in 

116 your letter, dated May 30th, in regard to the contract you 
have made under an act entitled "An act to enable the 
mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of Albany to 
dispose of tickets in a lottery heretofore granted," and to 
limit the continuance of lotteries, passed April 13th, 1826, 
I hereby communicate my acceptance ; and you will con- 
sider this as the evidence of my consent, and the pledge of 
my co-operation granted on the terms contained in the pro- 
position submitted. 

Very respectfully yours, &c, 

E. NOTT. 
Messrs. Yates & McIntyre. 



XVII. 

PRESIDENT OF U. C. TO YATES AND M'lNTYRE. 
[Consents on behalf of the institution to mixing of tickets.] 

Union College, June lO^A, 1826. 
Gentlemen — To the proposition submitted in your letter 
of the 2d inst., relative to the mixing of the tickets, autho- 
rised by the "Act to enable the mayor, aldermen and com- 
monalty of the city of Albany, to dispose of tickets in a 
lottery heretofore granted," with the tickets in the lotteries 
authorised by the "Act to limit the continuance of lot- *jg 
teries," I reply, that since it is understood and agreed that 
the stipulations entered into with Union College shall, not- 
withstanding the proposed mixing of tickets, be fully com- 
plied with, in behalf of the institution, my consent to the 
measure, on the terms proposed. And this I do the more 
cheerfully, as the trustees of the college are not made par- 
ties to the contract under the aforesaid act of April 13th, 
1826, and will not, therefore, be considered responsible for 
the hazard which may arise from proceedings had under it. 
Very respectfully yours, &c, 

E. NOTT, as Pres. n9 

XVIII. 



New-York, May 30, 1826. 
Rev. Sir — In order to bring all the lotteries of the State 
of New- York to a close, within the time for closing the 
Literature and Fever Hospital Lotteries, the Legislature 
have passed an act holding out strong inducements to the 
subscribers to accept of the conditions of the same, entitled 120 
"An act to enable the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of 
the city of Albany to dispose of tickets in a lottery hereto- 
fore granted, and to limit the continuance of the same," 
passed 13th April, 1826, under which act the subscribers 
have made a contract, in the execution of which they hope 
to be able to indemnify themselves for the heavy losses 
they have heretofore sustained ; which, contract, however, 
they cannot execute without your consent and co-operation, as 
it will require a further continuance of the heavy personal re- 
sponsibilities assumed by you on our behalf. And on condi- 
tion that such consent and co-operation is granted by you, 121 
we hereby stipulate and engage that, (after having drawn 
for the college 2.004,099 dollars worth of tickets, reckoned 
at their scheme price, of actual sales, and 1,654,497 dollars 
worth, of actual sales, for our own benefit, as assignees of the 
Fever Hospital Lottery,) we will, within ninety days after the 



30 

drawing of each subsequent class, after the drawing of said 
two sums, deposit to your credit, in such bank as you shall 
designate, six and thirty-one one hundredths per centum, 
on the gross amount of all tickets actually sold therein, to- 

122 gether with the interest accruing thereon from the day of 
drawing; which deposit shall, at all events, (and whether 
the Fever Hospital grant be completed or not,) be made to 
your credit, on all classes to be drawn from and after the 
second day of June, 1829, so long as we shall be allowed 
to operate under said act of April 13th, 1826, or any future 
act that may be passed modifying the principles therein 
contained. 

It is to be understood, however, that (if i of the Albany 
lands drawn to tickets remaining on the hands of the sub- 

123 scribers, or otherwise taken by them in furtherance of the 
lottery, shall, at the end of the same, be turned over to you, 
at the price said lands shall cost us ; that is to say, the 
original corporation appraisement thereof (when drawn on 
hand by us,) and when purchased from others, at the price 
paid therefor, together with the interest accruing thereon, 
in lieu of an equal amount of money. 

It is further to be understood, however, that the whole 
amount of Albany lands, turned over, shall not in any 
event exceed one-fourth part of the whole amount of the 

124 money to be deposited in bank as aforesaid to your credit, 
or that may be paid to your order, on accouut of the said 

6 T Vo P er cent - 

And it is also to be understood, that the rate of drawing 

shall not be less hereafter than it has heretofore been, unless 

from unavoidable necessity, satisfactory to yourself, or by 

mutual consent. 

The schemes of all classes, and the returns of tickets sold, 
to be, in all cases, forwarded to you, as early as practicable. 

We have the honor to be, with 

high respect, your obedient serv'ts, 

125 YATES & McINTYRE. 

XIX. 

a. m'intyre to e. nott. (Extract.) 

New- York, May 15, 1830. 
It gives me sincere pleasure, that we have been able at 
lengthy to get released your property, which you kindly hypo- 
thecated to raise funds for us in 1826, to save us at. a critical 
moment from ruin. The papers necessary to give you legal 
i OA possession of your property, you will receive herewith. And 
now, that this is accomplished, be pleased to accept of my sin- 
cere thanks for the important service you rendered us in this 



31 

particular , and to be assured that I shall never cease to hold 
the favor in grateful remembrance. 
I am, rev. dear sir, 
with sentiments of profound respect and esteem, 

your most obedient servant, 
A. McINTYRE. 
P. S. — Having concluded to send you this by mail, the 
certificates of stock, &c, &c, will be kept until Charles 127 
Yates goes up, which will be in a few days, by whom they 
will be sent. 

A. Mel. 
Rev. E. Nott, D. D. 

President Union College. 

PART OF XVIII. 

[The following stipulation, modifying that of May 30, 
1826, which is printed at folio 125, ante, should have 
been inserted immediately after it.] 

Stipulation of July 15, 1830. 

Whereas the claims of Union College against the subscribers, Yates & 
Mclntyre, arising out of their contracts under the law to limit the 
continuance of lotteries, passed the 5th April, 1822, have been fully 
paid, or provided for, by notes given August 1, 1828, when said con- 
tract was cancelled : and whereas the stipulation of the subscribers, 
entered into with Eliphalet Nott, on the 30th May, 1826, under the 
"Act to enable the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of 
Albany, to dispose of tickets in a lottery heretofore granted, and to 
limit the continuance of the same," passed April 13th, 1826, was for 
and in consideration of personal services rendered, or to be rendered, 
and hazards run, on our account; and whereas the hazards are dimin- 
ishing, while the difficulties of conducting the lotteries are increasing; 
therefore, in lieu of said stipulation entered into on the 30th May, 
1826, and of all the personal demands arising as aforesaid, out of 
services rendered and hazards run by said Nott for us, in regard to so 
much of the Consolidated Lottery as shall have been, or be drawn from 
and after the first day of May last, the subscribers promise to pay to 
said Eliphalet Nott, within ninety days after the drawing of each class, 
drawn as aforesaid, after the first of May last, five per centum on the 
gross amount of tickets sold therein, after deducting therefrom the 
contained amount of land, if any, in any of the schemes : It being 
always understood, that the said Eliphalet Nott is to take an equal 
share with us of the Albany lands that may fall into our hands, by 
purchase or by drawing them on hand, at the price they may cost us, 
and allowing us interest on the cost from the time of payment; and also 
that we are to continue to be authorised to sell any such Albany lands, 
when we can do so, we to be accountable to him therefor. 

YATES & McINTYRE. 

New-York, July 15, 1830. 



32 



H 

1—1 

o 

a 






00 



W £ 2> 






<} 


<^ 


fc* M 


^ 


as * 


O 


H ns 




5 s 




0) 








W P 




H 13 












M ^ 




fJl o 




3§ 




n 





W 
ffl 
Q 



n3S 



p«,a 

CO g 



«0 r-< .fc-sO i— I 
to O CO i— I OJ 



rH <N N (M i-l i-t 

N-^?o ■** coco 



i-O00CT»* 



OnO> 
NQ0O 

COO-**' CO oTrHC-T' 



CNi 






<U <n 00 






o o ^i o o o'Oo^O'ft'a irt<oo oo^iooia o o o .t~ o* »o 

»00i>.^50 OWONNN CS O O OONMON WiONfiJiOO 

HiamNO iftH«*HHH i— 1-*0 ifli»NHi»e^ «0 OS rH eO T* t?* 
OONffl WO £— -b- u^ *- -b- -t- i>> *£> <M «OJ>Q0^i»M i— I CO Jt» 00 00 SO 

^ o O rt< O »T5 OS OS OS OS C» OS OS O (O05O5OSOJOS »« i« cq *^ -5 -^ 

^ CO rH oTc^ CO ^KCO tJTtH -«* ^"«0 Cft r* GO '■>* r* 00 CO rH^rjTi-H OtToO 
€©■ i-l rH C* i-H r-l r-4 rH « C* "* i-i i-H rH W r-l iH rH 

: : : :"! : : : ; : : : ; : : ; : : : : §3 : I : : : 

"g cq c^i irq w co e<« 

5g\»«v»v. V.V.V.QQV.V* >• CO* v. CC« >• u « Ijrl" CO« » <• 

»^. v. v. « v.. *. u j-j w <a v,_^« «. ri »''>"'0 ( ^rt>"«'« 

r-<-©* th eo •«£ >«oi»HN'M >»*< rt« co r-Tc* ec t* >o to iH C* r-TiM CO ■* 

£ I? -3 

"8 -S § 

rH* H? © 

tf _•* s o 

-*» o >»^a O O O O OOP OOO OOOOCOO bnOOOCV 
gt3flg-T3 <-C 13 T3 i3 *a TS •a'C'S tj tj T3-T3 tJ-^S T3 ^7 ^ "O ■« -rf' 

OMC5 W i»i"!O00©>O «000 OSMflHOlOO) i— ICOC<Jl>-QO 
e^C^C^r-t iHtHrHC^i-H MC^ HN rWCOC^ COC^HMH 

«D O O «0 O «J>tOM to ^ o o CO «o CO <o 
■rtl iO iO COCO lOrtOitO <© tH O >0 OS «D .fr- «D 

o» cn i« oi «o co*-'<*co «© «o kOt^eo «© c^*» 
o o ih «o co co t-i i—i <rq co co co >o cq 10 nn 
SOcOOiOt- «D-*>OC» CO TK *-i-..t-«oeo©*. 

rj? e>? coco e^r?T-TWi > co rw 



o >o O O CO c^ 

rfomOHO 



OCO i-M GO 

WOlH* 

wococs 



O O O O O o 

OOO O O o 

o >o O O o o 

»»i-i eo cT rfiii 






f I 3 



i 



^-1 



w^ 



r_j 'Ci 'Cf p Cf 'CJ "^ 




r-to,, esiflOH eqoj^-rH co co >h 

CO CO vi 1-irH CS *^ tH CO 

o5« o 5 «* ,£ CO ^-i5 13 OJ 00 2"00 iS CO * 






33 



CS«C i— I OS CO 

100^00^ 

O 00 O O O) 



CO iO N SO 
•»# l— CO SO SO 



XXONMO) 



•c-S 









N<fltD 
iO rj* O 
OH* 



O CD 

coco 
uo Til 



O Ot- 
© OJ» 
O O CO 



©©OCSOCCO© 
©UOuOCOOOCO© 

Ot»OiOOi-M00 



53 

.£3 J3 JIM^A 

«rt © v. v. iOOhiO 






ST I 



« 


. 1-4 


f! 


: >» 




* 3 


cs 


iv*" 3 


» 


<n <-* 






T< 


«^1 




> H 






.2 


tt£ 




« 


2 


o « 


„ 


^2 



4 H 
o<< 



BOO 

,2 » « 
MOW 



vo i—i 

rH CO 



© R 



*Sis a * 



3 ^ ri.S-J 

C- ?^ eg 

.£» on ^S M 

"cS o s.5h 

-e^^ g 
c3<S£o 

03 3 ^ ^-^ 

fia-3 2 

■S .£ 13 e 2 



l.§c2§ 



S^ 



1 •§>■§« - 8 









t 

"ftfl 



$5,933 33 
5,962 50 
5,991 50 
6,020 83 
6,050 
6,079 16 
6,108 33 
6,137 50 
6,166 6£ 


e» 

«o 

o» 

CS 

oo 
cs 


2 

CO 
eo 


933 33 

962 50 
991 66 
1,020 83 
1,050 
1,079 16 
1,108 33 
1,137 50 
1,166 66 


o 
co 

lO 

£~ 

CO 
vO 


OS 

co 

OS 

cs 

CO 

m' 
cs 


<N«^iO<ONCOOC 

eccococococccoco-rf< 


-* 





iM§*& 



o « 






©0©©©©0©' 
©©©©©©COi 

©©©©©©o~' 



5 3 



©co 

© 00 

o eo 



- 



*v*MNHOCO) 

<^iocO'-i-*j>-c;cs 

'OiQiO^vOlONN 



*(X!H-5!its.O 
t- -t- CO GO CO OS 



*"3iOiOiOifjiOiOOOiOi 



(D Cf. O) iO (N tO CO © Jt- ■**( J~_ 
i-H CO ■*# © CO HMH3!DO0 v— I 

>fl'*nNHoooooN!omi.'>^ 

(NiOOOH^NONiflOOHTUN© 

■oioiooiOcoi-i-^NQOooooot 



a- - 



Ng«iS<^£6fcA££s 






CSOOOOCSvOOOOOOcs;^ 

ooooooooooooSS 

© o OOOOOOOOOOoO 

' Oifti9rf>ioiOioi<jKsi(5«!:o XvT>*k 



34 



00 iO to CO . 
"**- 00 « 



ONt-Orit-OlOMtONNOONHOrtCfO<CiOiOC«) 



3 

•I 

6 



H 



w 

w 



H 

W 
CO 



P 

N 

o 

GO 



2,6 

o* 



CO tO ■># *0 i— >flNO5OlOJOiOJOi00r- IO>0>05005J>J>C)i>i- 1 e <o — o 
HcqN^ONCOHaiOOQOCOHH^OCOOOOM00550 0iHHr-(Nl> 

rHcq ojeoc*eotocopococo«o»oeNeocscococs to cm co'co cs cn eVco c^ 



4 



to 

£2 



be 



a 



o 



I 



k 

















cn 

00 
r-l 
H 
& 






CM 
iO 




to 

<M 

00 

t— 1 












CO 











r ^<eNr-ieO"'i<'"OtOt~,— iC*CO-**' 

5 s 

O rQ 






o o p o o o o 



lH r O r OT3 r d r O' , T3 r C r d 



pq k pq PP pq M pq W 



ooooooooooooo^Jocoooco 

■p r O r t3'T3 r O r i3'0'O r O r O r 3 , o'OKH r O r O'0'0'O r O r O 



*"0 r O T^ r O ""O *0 r ^ r O r O' P T3 ' 



££.. * 



pqpqpqpq aapqpqpqpqpqpqpopqpq gipqpqpa papqpq 

COCO«OOOJNiOH3>OOnKNN CC'cC O SO 
i i— I CS »-< CN <N r-1 CM HCOINCUNHNr-IN CM 

c? ia «5 5" fl &=«c)aB s30^s S03*o 



£— O "A O 

^HOOWr- . i~CM 00 



MOOONOOiOO'O 

OOOOMriHNHN 



000(000 
rH Jt- CO O O 
COcO"*50^'«*C<JGCi— iMOOHOdOO 

— ' c^c^ eo cs -^ to os co to >o co to i- «o 



"ra O O O CO OO OO OO OO OO 
0000000000000000 



co to o 00 co eo K-t 






•-SH8 ' 



35 







CO 








* 


5 "3 




■**< 


j 






K 


- 2 . 


*> 


1 CO 








C 


> *H 


? 


© 
cm 


j 






3f 

c 




*r 




€£• 


i 






<y 


• 5 H 


- - 


•<* 


^OlIS 




4J H 

.5 J 


•<* a 


3 ■* 


O © ">♦ 




© © 


> CO 


CN*-t-l 






— o 


> rf 


iC O CM 












S3 




<» 


€» 






|H 
















3 
















© 
















^ 
















-»s 
















© 




























© 
















© 

Ih 


c 

c 


i 2 










T3 


c 
c 


: a i 

> co 3 


eoa 


i 


! 

E 


1 


© 


c 
c 


cm © 

CO .» 






c 


t 


55 

c 

1 © 

© 
>§5 


: 


2 § 


© c 

T3r: 


> 


T 

c 
« 


1 

C 


1 


1 CO 


>>> 

cae 


■» 


« 
PC 


* 


tj 




O 


i- c 












"^«2 


t-i i- 












-.,© 














hand to mo 
en paid will 




©5 O 


1 


DC 








nc 


j 


■^ 


















*K' C 




i— *- 




Ct 






© £ 




i- c 


. 


£ 








o » 




K 






OJS 










r ; i 




+i o 




© «<J 










O'S 




r- < 




D 


it 




13 £ 




© ■*■ 


1 


rl 






oj 




T* C 


. i 


"« 




> £2 












© o 




i-i c- 


1 


K 






SO ^ 




CJ u: 


. 1 


-r 






«o 




*- u: 




a 


1 












" i 




5 o 




oc 


> 1 








C7 




*-n 


" 


5 


i 

•1 




<-co 

1 11 




























*l£ 














© fcO 














Si '-> 














>>® 














£ a 














© r. 














*=« © 














*l 














co c 




























>H © 














a 






! 








«s ° 




: 










-"2 




i 










«o a 














p 3 




e 










© 3 




^ 


i 








-2 © 














S-G 














© ■»» 














IJ 

M a 




























•si 














© (1 














>r«s 














|5 














T3t3 














B§ 
















8 





N 








t> 




rx 




T3 




fl 




3 




Pm 




OQ 








-*-a 




a 




0) 




T3 








rjl 




<V 




U 




PM 




cp 




fl 


TV 


sH 


OQ 


Ph 


w 


^ 


H 


orT 


O 


00 

T— 1 








-4-3 


P=H 


CC 






o 


bC 






H 


< 


02 








J 



*s©« «© n o> «o <>» 2g 

O«OC0 r-i M rj* «© CO <© 

«HOO0l00N«0«2 

+3 05NiOi»©5<;©0)« 



at^^eoecco , #'^' , * i ** , ~ , 



5- y 



©HNM^*«^2 



H3 


CM 




oS2 










«S2 










22 




O 


© 

a 
a 


July, 
Aug. 
Sept. 
Oct. 


NOV. 

Dec. 
Jan. 
Jan. 




to 

o 














P 


-£ 








O 


£ 








■+J 


3 








fl 


.2 








0) 


5 










F 




M 


CO 


O 




i— 1 


-H 




"3S 


O00<»0000» 


c» 




o-S 


30<S<0000»« 


o 






sooooooco 


00 














1* 


4««>OiOK)iO^ 


-* 








^ 



36 
XXL 

REPORT OF SILAS WRIGHT AND WILLIAM JAMES July 26, 18 51, 

(Kecords, Book B, p, 163.) 

The finance committee of the trustees of Union College, 
pursuant to a resolution of the board of trustees, of the 
28th July, now last past, beg leave respectfully to report: 

That the first object of the committee has been to ascer- 
tain with precision the funds which have at any time been 
contributed, either by individuals and corporate donations, 
or by public appropriations, or from any other source, to 
aid in founding or sustaining this institution. The result 
143 of this inquiry is, that the following sums have been ap- 
propriated to the benefit of Union College, and have either 
been received and made available, or are still in prospect, 
to wit : 

1 . Subscriptions to the funds of the college, actually re- 

ceived, $2,707 42 

2. Old academy granted to the college by the 

Dutch church of Schenectady, actual re- 
ceipts thereof, 571 89 

3. Bonds given to the college by the trustees 
of the Schenectady patent, actual receipts 
therefor, 38,357 98 



144 



4. Grants by the State as follows to wit : 
By § 20 of Supply bill of 9th 

April, 1795, $3,750 00 

By § 26 of Supply bill of 11th 

April, 1796, 10,000 00 

By act, chap. 65, § 3 of 30th 

March, 1797, 1 ,500 00 

By act, chap. 19, § 1 of 7th 

145 March, 1800, 10,000 00 

By act, chap. 62, of 1805, to be 

received by lottery $80,000, 
but from which there was 
received but 76,138 01 

By act chap. 120 of 1814, 
amended by chap. 113 of 
1822, to be received by Lit- 
erature lottery not yet clos- 
ed, 200,000 00 

By act chap. 19 of 1800, ten 
lots in the Military tract, re- 

146 served for the promotion of 
literature, 5,500 acres of 



$41,637 29 



37 



land, the principal money 
of the sales to the present 

time amounting to 32,912 38 

By act, chap 105, § 2 of 1802, 
garrison land at Fort George, 
Ticonderoga and Crown 
Point, 1,449 acres, all sold, 
and principal amounting to 9,378 20 



343,678 59 



1385,315 88 



To be added to the above, are two of the ten lots of land ^' 
granted by the act of the 7th of March, 1800, to wit : lot 
41 Solon, and lot 18 Manlius, yet remain unsold. But as 
the committee have no means of ascertaining the actual 
value of those lots, and as they still remain the property of 
the college, it is not material for the purpose of the exam- 
ination to be made, that they should be considered at all. 
It should also be remembered that although the grant 
made by the act of 1814, of $200,000, to be raised by lot- 
tery, has been settled with the managers, so far as the 
principal and interest of that sum is concerned, and their "^ 
obligations, and the obligations and securities of other per- 
sons taken for the amount, which are exhibited as part of 
the funds of the institution, yet that but very little money 
has as yet been received upon the principal of that grant, 
and up: n the payment of those obligations or not depends 
the justice of exhibiting as above the $200,000, as part of 
the funds granted to the college. Yet for the purpose of 
comparison, which the committee wish to present to the 
board, no variance in result will be experienced from this 
consideration, inasmuch as while the $200,000 is charged 1^9 
as received on the one side, the obligations are credited as 
funds on hand on the other. 

They assume therefore, that the statement before made 
shows all the funds which have come to the hands of the 
trustees or their agents, separate from the ordinary reve- 
nues of the college itself, and that this board is properly 
chargeable, and bound satisfactorily to account for the 
amount of those funds, $385,315.88. 

To do this in a way the most simple and best calculated 
to satisfy the mind with the past management, and at the 1 50 
same time to give a view of the present state of the funds, 
they first present the existing means as they now find 
them, separate from the property in the college itself and 
its appurtenances. 



These means consist of the following items, to wit : 

Stock in solvent chartered companies, $89,105 00 

Obligations receivable, being the principal 
moneys due upon bonds and mortgages, 
contracts and notes,. . . * 251,457 98 

Making together, $341,556 98 

To this should be added the investments 
which have been made in the stocks of the 

151 Bank of Hudson, the Franklin Bank of 
New- York, and the Water- works, and turn- 
pike company, which stocks are still held, 
but the companies have since the invest- 
ments were made, become wholly insol- 
vent, or the stocks wholly unproductive, . 15,675 00 

$357,231 98 

The sum above charged as having been received, is 

152 $385,315.88, from which, if the above amount accounted 
for be deducted, there will remain $28,083.90, being the 
balance to be accounted for of the principal moneys charged 
to the institution. 

This, however, is upon the assumption that the amounts 
received from contributions from the old academy and 
from the bonds of the trustees, were not converted to the 
immediate use of the institution, but were kept and have 
remained productive funds regularly and constantly in- 
vested. This assumption the committee by no means 

1 53 adopt, as there can be no doubt from the most slight ex- 
amination of the order of time in which these donations 
were received, compared with the dates of the respective 
grants from the State, that these sums were at once expen- 
ded as the first aids in helping this institution into life and 
action. There should therefore be deducted from the 
above amount of supposed productive funds, the total of 
these items, amounting to $41,637.29, and sinking that 
amount to $133,428.59. 

But another and principal consideration in this view of 

154 the subject remains to be taken. More than half of the 
whole sum charged to have been received by the trustees, 
and for which they are accountable, to wit : the sum of 
$200,000, granted by the act of 1814, was granted with 
the condition that no more than six years interest should 
be demanded until the whole principal was paid and the 
lotteries closed. That principal has been liquidated, to- 
gether with the six years of interest due thereon, and is 
now held by the trustees in obligations against the mana- 
gers of the lotteries, and in securities taken from them, 



39 

but it has not been paid, and therefore, beyond the six 155 
years for which the act making the grant allowed interest, 
the whole of this $200,000 has necessarily in a legal sense 
remained unproductive. 

It is believed that this view of the receipts and expen- 
ditures of the college, coupled with the single statement 
before made of the amount of funds on hand, the losses 
sustained without any fault on the part of the trustees or 
their agents, and solely through investments which result- 
ed unfortunately, would be sufficient to satisfy this board, 
the Legislature and the public, that not only good faith, 156 
but great care and uncommon prudence have been con- 
stantly exercised in the management of the funds of the 
institution. 

But as an examination of the unexpended funds will be 
calculated to present in a stronger light the full extent to 
which the benevolent designs of the Legislature in endow- 
ing this institution have been kept in view, and as such 
an examination becomes necessary, to acquaint the board 
with the present state and condition of those funds, the 
committee are emboldened to ask further indulgence while 157 
they go through this task, as cursorily as it can be done 
without a forfeiture of the object in view. 

And here it becomes necessary to remark, that all the 
former observations and statements have been founded upon 
the assumption, that the whole amount of the $200,000, 
granted by the act of 1814, had been received. This in a 
literal sense is true to a very limited extent only ; and it 
will be seen that so far as the objects designed by that 
grant have, as yet, been accomplished, it is by the aid of 
the other funds. 158 

The following is a classification of the items of the ex- 
isting funds denominated "Obligations Receivable," with 
reference to the source from which the respective amounts 
were derived. 

Securities for lands ceded by the State. — Ten lots by the 
act of 1800. 

Bonds and mortgages, $4,774 16 

Contracts, 1,265 52 

Garrison lands by act of 1802. 

Bond and mortgage, 2,485 60 159 

$8,525 28 

Securities for lands conveyed by the city of 

Schenectady in exchange for the old college. 

Bonds and mortgages, $18,622 20 

Contracts, 838 44 

Notes, 47 98 

19,508 62 



40 

Securities token from Stephen JV. Bayard for 
a debt due. 

Bond and mortgage, $5,952 79 

Note, 1,379 70 

160 — 7,322 49 

Securities for money loaned. 
Bonds and mortgages, $20,838 69 



20,838 69 



Securities received in payment taken with guar- 
antee^ and taken on settlement of the amount 
due under the act of 1814. 

Bonds and mortgages taken in 

payment, $100,921 51 

Note, 1,500 00 

161 102,421 51 

Bonds and mortgages guaran- 
tied, $36,350 00 

JVotesfor balance due, 57,475 39 



196,246 90 



Making the total given before of $252,451 98 



Thus it will be seen that the amount now due from the 

162 managers of the lotteries, and upon securities which they 
have assigned to the College is $196,246 . 90, a sum less than 
the principal of the grant made by the act of 1814, by only 
$3,753.10. But it should be taken in mind, as well in 
justice to the managers as for the correct understanding of 
the means which have been received to sustain the expen- 
ditures hitherto made, and to continue the funds as they at 
present exist, that the six years' interest allowed by the 
act of 1814, upon the money granted by it, has in this mode 
of viewing the subject, been received and appropriated to 

163 the expenses of the institution, and to the existing funds. 

To the above amount of obligations receivable should be 
added the investments in stocks now held by the Trustees, 
and amounting to $104,780. These two amounts, on the 
present funds of the institution to be made available for 
any purpose of expenditure, or to be credited to the Trus- 
tees, as so much of the amount entrusted to them whenever 
they are called upon to account. 

It must be gratifying to know that the expenditures un- 
der the different classifications have been — 

164 For support of officers, beyond the whole receipts from 

tuition applicable to the payment of officers, $1 13,060 38 

In aid of indigent students, 47,401 86 

For the classical library, 5,947 31 

For the library and apparatus, 18,102 55 



41 

For buildings and grounds, 221,401 01 

For incidental excuses, 10,433 89 

Making a total of, $416,347 00 

A sum larger than the whole amount of the funds granted 

to the college by the state, and by individuals and corpo- 165 

rations, by $31,031.12. 

One other comparison shall close this part of the subject. 
The whole amount of funds received by the Trustees, and 

for which they are chargeable, as above is, $385,315 88 
The amount of the capital of the several funds 

it is now proposed to institute, and which 

if no further losses are sustained, there will 

be means to institute, when the lotteries are 

closed, over and above all existing debts, 

and after sinking the insolvent stocks, is. . 286,356 98 166 

A sum less than the whole fund received by 

only $98,958 90 

In the meantime, separate from the loss sustained be- 
tween the expenses of the Old College and the sum reali- 
zed for it, the following property, estimated from its cost, 
has been accumulated, to wit : 

New College buildings and grounds, $186,181 09 

Library and apparatus, 18,102 55 

Classical library, 5,917 31 167 

In all . $210,230 95 

Add to this the above amount of funds on 
hand, after deducting all ascertained losses 
and paying all debts, 286,356 98 

and you will have $496,587 93 

From this deduct the whole amount of funds 

received, as before given, 385,31 5 88 

168 

And there will remain $111,272 05 

Thus showing the actual accumulation of property, at cost, 
to this extent, instead of a sinking of any part of the capital 
of the fund bestowed. If to the above be added the fol- 
lowing items: 

Loss upon the Old College, $35,219 92 

Loss of stocks, , 15,675 00 

Payment in aid of Indigent students, 47,401 86 

In all $98,296 78 169 

The conclusion must follow, not only that the finances 
of the institution have been well conducted, but that a 

6 



42 

singular good fortune has attended that management which 
could by possibility enable these funds to produce these re- 
sults, and annually to sustain the excess of the ordinary 
expenses of the institution over its income, separate from 
the auxiliary funds. 

Indeed these results are of a character which nearly 

170 defy credulity ; and as their explanation becomes almost 
entirely personal as to one member of the committee, the 
other members find it indelicate and improper to introduce 
that explanation into this report. They have, therefore, 
embodied in an appendix those facts which they deem it 
important the board should understand, and which at the 
present time at least, partake so much of the nature of con- 
fidential communications, as, in their opinions, to justify 
them in making the communication in that shape, and in 
submitting the disposition of the facts disclosed to the 

171 better discretion of the trustees. To that document the 
majority of the committee threfore refer for such explana- 
tions as every investigating mind will require, with the 
single observation that nothing contained in it, and no ex- 
amination of the fiscal affiairs of the college which they 
have been able to make, whether confidential or not, will 
have any other tendency than fully to establish the disin- 
terestedness, integrity and vigilance with which every act 
in relation to these funds, on the part of that member of 
the committee, who does not join in the appendix, has been 

172 characterized. 

But the committee feel impelled here again to recur to 
the fact, that this flattering state of affairs of the college 
funds is not beyond the reach of contingency and hazard. 
Nearly sixty thousand dollars of the funds of which they 
have been treating, and upon which their fair calculations 
are based, exist in unmatured notes against the managers 
of the lotteries, and we shall not disguise from ourselves the 
probable fact that their punctual payment, and perhaps it 
would not be too much to say, their payment in any event, 

173 must depend upon the success with which these very uncer- 
tain and hazardous institutions shall be finally brought to a 
termination. Thirty-six thousand dollars more of these 
funds exist in securities assigned by the managers, and 
guarantied by them, and so far as the securities shall prove 
bad, and this board be left to call upon guarantors, this 
part of the amount cannot be considered exempt from the 
same contingency. One hundred thousand dollars more 
exist in securities received from the managers in payment 
of so much of the claim upon the lotteries. These securi- 

174 ties were taken at a time when heavy misfortunes and 
heavy losses seemed to render the final success of the lot- 
teries doubtful, and when therefore the securities were 



43 

considered of more value than the claims for their amounts, 
dependent as it was upon the future efforts of the managers 
to regain their former losses, and to accomplish the origi- 
nal purpose for which the lotteries were instituted. 

The securities are, with one exception, bonds and mort- 
gages, and little or no loss, it is hoped, will be sustained 175 
upon them ; but the obligors are widely scattered, some 
of the demands are very large, and a knowledge amount- 
ing to certainty, as to th? value of the property mortgaged, 
or the personal responsibility of the individual debtors, 
cannot be had. 

Losses may also be experienced upon some of the other 
securities, and indeed are, to a very limited extent, already 
anticipated. Other investments, though now considered 
perfectly secure, may prove unfortunate, and in short these 
funds yet require the same vigilance and the same guar- 175 
dianship which has hitherto been extended to them, or 
all our favorable anticipations will fail us. 

The notes taken from the managers upon the final set- 
tlement with them, all fall due between the first of the 
now next month and the first of May next, but the amounts 
are large, and they fall in so rapidly, that it is not reason- 
able to expect the payment of all at the day. If success 
is experienced by the managers, some indulgence will no 
doubt be required, but the committee recommend that as 
little be given as shall be found consistent with a due re- 177 
gard to the interests of the debtors and to the safety of 
their operations. 

Appendix. 

Having investigated the matters on which this report is 
founded, the subscribers deem it part of their duty to no- 
tice the result exhibited in the last statement, because that 
from a. general knowledge of the resources and expendi- 
tures of the institution during the past twenty-five years, 
under ordinary management of its concerns, a different re- 178 
suit might be expected. If, in explanation, their remarks 
shall bear on an officer of the college, they are free to say 
that the other member of your committee of finance had 
no part nor act in framing either the report or this note. 
This is not the occasion, neither is it the intention of the 
signers to eulogize individuals who are in the full enjoy- 
ment and exercise of high and distinguished faculties, and 
from whom so much good to the college is yet hoped for 
and expected ; when that time shall arrive, an ample source 
for commendation will be found in reviewing the exertions, 179 
with the wise and well directed force of talent and influ- 
ence that procured the greater part of the funds which 
your committee have been examining. They will there- 



44 

fore confine themselves to the abstract point mentioned, 
From the report it may be perceived that donations to the 
college were to be received in years after the grants, and 
that the greater part of them had been encumbered with 

180 conditions that absorbed much of their nominal value, and 
that further diminutions became necessary from the wants 
of the establishment, which required that the avails should 
be anticipated, at cost of interest, &c, &c. It may also be 
observed that donations in the best lands had been unpro- 
ductive for years, and that such, in lands of inferior quality, 
remain useless at this day. It will further be seen from 
the report that the faculty have expended on benevolent 
objects an amount exceeding legislative requirements, and 
that they have also met a great amount in losses on stocks, 

181 &c, &c. Such considerations are calculated to check the 
hopes of the friends of the college in finding a balance over 
the endowment ; and if the institution has been raised to 
its present high character without diminishing the capital, 
it appears plain to your committee that that all important 
result could only have been effected by indefatigable at- 
tention to prudence, economy and wise measures ; but after 
having met expenditures and losses there appears to be an 
excess of more than $100,000, which forms a problem that 
must be solved on principles different from ordinary, or 

182 even intense assiduities to official duties. Individual en- 
terprise or parental anxieties, under the guidance of rare 
and experienced minds, can only afford instances of such 
increase of property under different and expensive esta- 
blishments, and to such solicitude and sympathies for the 
institution, the subscribers have traced about $90,000, 
which now makes part of the balance in its favor. 

This amount is aggregated partly by relinquishments of 
stipulated salaries from principal officers; $8,500 of it ap- 
pears to have been a fortuitous result of a speculation in 

183 chances, which had been generously added to the funds 
many years ago. The residue is composed of the net gains 
on various speculations and contracts made on individual 
account (or names) and responsibility, in the course of 
years ; all which had been applied to the sole use and bene- 
fits of the college. A sum of $42,000 out of the last men- 
tioned sources has been added to the fund since the last annual 
meeting of the board. The statement shows a large capital 
on paper exclusive of edifices, and also that the funds are 
no more than will be required to attain the important and 
interesting objects contemplated by the friends of Union 

184 College. All which is respectfully submitted, 

SILAS WRIGHT, Jr., 
WILLIAM JAMES, 

Committee. 



45 



XXIL 

TREASURER TO EFFECT SETTLEMENT WITH PRESIDENT. 

Resolved, That the Treasurer be authorised to receive 
from the President of Union College the balance in his 
hands after deducting the expenses incurred, in conformity 
to the original resolution of this board in relation to the 18 5 
supervision and management of the Literature Lottery, and 
to make a final settlement of the whole concern whenever 
the same shall be desired by the President. Book of 
Minutes B, page 197. July 27, 1831. 

XXIII. 

CONCLUSION OF THE REPORT OF GOV. MARCY, SILAS WRIGHT 

AND JOHN P. CUSHMAN. 

[November 24, 1834, Minute Book C., p, 10.] 

In view of all the preceding facts, it has appeared to your 186 
committee — 

1. That the embarrassments of Messrs. Yates & Mcln- 
lyre, according to their own statements, arose from specu- 
tatlons entered into by them, apart from the lottery busi- 
ness, and wholly unconnected with Union College. 

2. That such was the nature and extent of their embar- 
rassments, that they would have been ruined, but for the 
timely and efficient and continued aid afforded them by the 
president of the college. 

3. That the contracts made by them with the president, 187 
were upon adequate and full consideration ; and that the 
frequent changes complained of by Yates & Mclntyre, were 

in fact made at their urgent request ; and that the repeated 
modifications have invariably been in their own favor. 

4. That the president has furnished extensive means, per- 
formed important services, and run great personal hazards, 
for the contractors on their repeated applications, and this 
evidently without any sinister motive, without the design 
of personal gain ; but for the sole purpose of aiding the 
contractors, and of securing and advancing the interests of 
Union College, or some kindred institution connected there- 188 
with. 

In conclusion — it has appeared to your committee that 
Messrs. Yates & Mclntyre have received the benefits of a 
steady and faithful performance of these contracts, and that 
the interests of the college, and of science, as well as the 
claims of justice, require that the trustees should unite 
with the president in the proceedings which have been com- 
menced, or which may become necessary and proper, to 
obtain a full performance on the part of Yates & Mclntyre. 



46 

189 That the course of the president throughout all the novel 
and difficult emergencies which have occurred in conduct- 
ing this whole business, has been marked by fairness and 
liberality towards the contractors, and by firmness, sagacity, 
and disinterested zeal for the interests of the college and 
of education. 

That the full powers with which he was invested by the 
trustees, have been exercised with wisdom and success : and 
from the information they have received of his views in 
relation to this whole subject, your committee are of opinion 

1 90 that the interest of the college and of science requires that 
these plenary powers should be continued. 

Your committee, therefore, recommend, that the Finance 
Committee be instructed to take the charge and supervision, 
of all suits with the contractors, in which this board is a 
party, now pending, or which may hereafter be instituted, 
or by them be judged necessary for asserting or maintaining 
the rights of Union College, with authority to employ such 
professional aid as may by them be deemed proper, and that 
they be authorized to draw on the treasurer for the expenses 
29j which may be incurred in the premises. 

Your committee further recommend, that the present 
treasurer of College be authorized, by and with the advice 
of the financial committee, to perform hereafter, in any 
transactions springing out of the supervision of the lotte- 
ries, all the acts that the former treasurer was authorized 
to perform. That by and with the advice of the financial 
committee, he receive from the president any bonds and 
mortgages, or other property, taken by him during the su- 
pervision of said lotteries, and co-operate with him as far 
1 92 as mav be, i n tm3 investment and management of any funds 
that have been or may be hereafter received by him in con- 
sideration of personal services rendered and hazards run ; 
but which funds are intended for the ultimate benefit of 
Union College, or some kindred institution connected there- 
with. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

W. L. MARCY, 
SILAS WRIGHT, Jr., 
JOHN P. CUSHMAN, 

Committee. 



193 



[The recommendations of the Committee, approved by the Trustees. Minutes, 
Book C, p. 15, &c] 

XXIV. 

REPORT OF MESSRS. CUSHMAN AND DIX, 1837. 
[Records, Book C, page 53.] 

Whereas Yates & Mclntyre, in addition to the entire 
amount due to Union College under their contract of July 



47 

29th, 1822, have stipulated to pay to Eliphalet Nott cer- 
tain additional amounts, in consideration of subsequent 
services rendered, moneys advanced, and responsibilities 
assumed in behalf of Yates & Mclntyre, either singly by 
himself, or jointly by himself and the college ; and where- 
as, a portion of said additional amounts so stipulated to be 
paid has already been received by the said E. Nott 3 and 194 
by him invested, in part in lands, and in part in bonds and 
mortgages on land lying on the East river in New- York, 
immediately above Twelfth-st., or on Long Island opposite 
thereto, at Bushwick or Hunter's Point ; and 

Whereas, Dr. Nott has signified to this committee his 
readiness to transfer to Union College, not only its entire 
portion of said lands and bonds and mortgages, to hold in 
its own right, but also the portion belonging to himself, 
on the terms heretofore set forth in his reports to this 
board, for the years 1831 and 1832, as soon as the same 195 
shall be definitely ascertained ; 

Therefore, your committee recommend that this board 
agree to a final settlement with Dr. Nott, based on a divi- 
sion between him and the college, of said additional 
amounts so received under such several stipulations pro 
rata, according to the services rendered, moneys advanced, 
and responsibilities assumed by each in behalf of Yates 
and Mclntyre, as the consideration on which said stipula- 
tions were entered into, and that the treasurer, by and 
with the approbation of the other members of the finance 196 
committee, be directed to consummate such settlement 
with Dr. Nott. 

And that when such settlement shall have been consum- 
mated, the treasurer shall be authorised to receive from Dr. 
Nott the portion of said amounts found to belong to said 
college, in the bonds and mortgages aloresaid as by him 
received or to be hereafter received of Neziah Bliss and 
others, on his or their undivided right in said land, or in 
a transfer of his own undivided right or any part thereof, 
the same to be estimated at the rate the other rights were 197 
estimated at when said bonds and mortgages were received 
by him on settlement with the said Neziah Bliss and 
others. 

And that the treasurer be also authorised to receive from 
Dr. Nott, in like manner, the remaining portion of said 
additional amounts which shall be found to belong to him, 
and enter the same in a separate fund to be denominated 
Dr. Nott's fund, and to be held and applied conformably 
to the aforesaid report of Dr. Nott to this board of July, 
1831, and that a separate annual report be made hereafter 198 
thereon to this board. 

And further, that the treasurer be authorised by and 



48 

with the advice of the president, to settle with the as- 
signees of H. Nbtt & Co., for any balance which may be 
found due from that firm, and to accept in payment there- 
of either stock, notes, or other personal property belong- 
ing to said estate, and held by said assignees, according as 
shall be deemed most for the interest of this board, and 
to give therefor under the seal of this board, if necessary, 

199 a receipt in part or in full, as the case may be. 

JOHN P. CUSHMAN, 
JOHN A. DIX. 
Schenectady, July 25, 1837. 

XXV. 
Comparative statement of responsibilities assumed. 

Responsibilities assumed by Union College in behalf of 

Yates & Mclntyre, $140,000 00 

Responsibilities assumed by E.Nottin behalf 

200 of Yates & Mclntyre, 338,000 00 

Certificate of Treasurer. 

The board of trustees having at their last meeting, 
(July 26, 1837,) directed the treasurer, by and with the 
approbation of the members of the finance committee, to 
eifect a final settlement with the President of college, on 
account of the per centage received by him under the stip- 
ulations above referred to, assuming as a basis of such set- 
tlement, the services rendered, and responsibilities assum- 
oa-i ed by him and the college respectively, in behalf of Yates 
& Mclntyre ; which respective responsibilities, exclusive 
of advances made on securities by the President, are be- 
lieved to be correctly set forth in the above statement, the 
same having been compared with the President's bank 
books and other documents relating thereto in the posses- 
sion of the undersigned. 

JONAS HOLLAND, 
Treas. Union College. 

Approval of finance committee. 

The undersigned, members of the finance committee, 

hereby approve ot the treasurer's effecting a settlement 

2®% with the President, as directed by the board, on account of 

the per centage in question, on the terms above set forth, 

conformable to the resolution of 26th July, 1837. 

JOHN P. CUSHMAN, 
A. C. FLAGG. 



49 



XXVI. 

Extracts from reports of Attorney-General Bronson. 

In 1832, the Attorney General made a report to the As- 
sembly on the subject of these lotteries. Assembly Docs. 
1832, No. 292, p. 10 and 11. In this, he computes the 
amount of tickets that might be sold annually at $389,800, 203 
and the total in eleven years at $4,287,800. He thinks 
that the institutions might draw more than the average 
amount in' any year, so as to hasten the conclusion of the 
lotteries, but that they could not exceed the total amount. 

In 1833 the Attorney General made another report. As- 
sembly Docs, of 1833, No. 13, vol. 1. 

The result of rejecting the Owego lottery is thus stated : 

u The Literature lotteries could in no event be extended 
beyond a period of eleven years, which would expire oil 
the 21st of April, 1834. During that period the in.aitu- 2 04 
tions might annually sell and draw tickets to the amount 
of $335,800 ; amounting in the eleven years to $3,693,800. 
When that amount of tickets has been sold and drawn, 
these lotteries were to cease, whether the eleven years had 
expired or not." 

XXVII. 

REPORT OF MESSRS. MARCY AND FLAGG, NOV. 15, 1838. 
[Records, Book C, p. 74.] 

The committee appointed for the purpose of settling by 205 
compromise the suits pending between Union College and 
Yates & Mclntyre, report, 

That by the indenture entered into on the 29th July, 
1822, between Union College and Yates & Mclntyre (Doc. 
§ 36) as modified by certain subsequent stipulations (Doc. 
§ § 81, 94, 111,) the said Yates k Mclntyre covenanted to 
pay the Treasurer of Union College for its entire right, title 
and interest in the literature lottery, 8| per cent., and to 
pay to the President of Union College for the supervision 
and management thereof 2| per centum on $4,948,597 206 
worth of tickets reckoned at their scheme price, which was 
the amount computed to have been authorised to be drawn 
in said Literature Lottery under the act " to limit the con- 
tinuance of lotteries," passed April 5, 1822. 

Subsequently however, to wit, in the year 1832, on the 
agitation of the lottery question by the Legislature, in con- 
sequence of the presentment of the grand jury of the city 
of New- York, it was adjudged by the Attorney-General, to 
whom the question was finally referred (see his report 
dated Jan. 7th, 1833, page 9), that in place of $4,948,597 

7 



50 

207 worth of tickets, the whole amount of tickets authorised to 
be drawn under the act to limit the continuance of lotteries 
was only $3,693,800 worth, being $1,254,795 worth less 
than the amount which had been previously assumed. 

The percentage paid on this amount of tickets by Yates 
& Mclntyre, to wit, the 8| to the Treasurer, and 2 \ to the 
President of Union College, amounted exclusive of interest, 
at the lime ef settlement, Aug. 1, 1828, to $138,027.45, 
and the interest for nine years thereon, to Aug. 1,1837, 
amounted to $86,957.37, making a total of $224,984.82. 

208 For the recovery of this amount, claimed to have been 
paid in error, Yates & Mclntyre filed their bill before the 
Chancellor. 

Your committee further report, that after the drawing of 
the Literature Lottery had closed, Yates & Mclntyre enter- 
ed into successive stipulations with Eliphalet Nott, the last 
of which was dated July 15, 1830, covenanting to pay him 
for individual services rendered, hazards run and moneys 
advanced in their behalf, a certain percentage on all tickets 
to be drawn in the consolidated lottery after the 22d day of 

209 June, 1829, when it was calculated that the Fever Hospital 
Lottery would be closed. 

Your committee further report, that under the stipula- 
tions so entered into with the President of Union College, 
he claimed that there remained due to him from Yates & 
Mclntyre a larger amount even than the amount claimed 
to have been paid in error to Union College ; for the re- 
covery of which amount he had filed a bill before the Chan- 
cellor, in which bill the trustees of Union College had 
without their knowledge been joined by him as complain- 

210 ants. 

That to this bill Yates & Mclntyre had demurred on the 
ground, 

1 . That the trustees of Union College have no interest in 
the issue of said bill, they having transferred all their right, 
title and interest in and to said lottery to Yates & Mclntyre 
by an indenture entered into between the parties July 29, 
1822. 

That said stipulations in question were entered into with 
Eliphalet Nott personally, for services rendered, hazards 

211 run and moneys advanced by him, in which Union College 
could therefore have no interest. 

That such was the state of things when it was proposed 
to stop all further litigation, and bring this whole complex 
controversy to a close, by a mutual relinquishment between 
the parties concerned, of a portion of what had hitherto 
been deemed to be their legal rights, the same to be set 
forth in a triplicate agreement to be entered into between 
Archibald Mclntyre, Henry Yates and John Ely, Junior, 



51 

surviving partners of the house of Yates and Mclntyre, of 
the first part, the trustees of Union College, in the town of 
Schenectady, of the second part, and Eliphalet Nott, of the 212 
third part ; one of the conditions of which agreement to 
be, that the party of the second part thereto should relin- 
quish their claim to the bond and mortgage of John B. 
Yates, for the payment of $55,000, with the interest due 
thereon, and also their claim to certain promissory notes of 
Yates and Mclntyre, amounting to $19,448.47, and also 
their claim on the party of the first part for the payment of 
$20,000 with the interest paid thereon to the New- York In- 
surance Company; another condition of said triplicate 
agreement to be that the party of the first part thereto exe- 213 
cute their bond for the further sum of $150,000, the same 
to be in full of all demands against the party of the first 
part by the parties of the second and the third ; and an- 
other condition of said triplicate agreement to be, that all 
the parties thereto suspend the suits already commenced, 
and relinquish their right to the commencing of any other 
suits in the future prosecution of their respective claims in 
the premises. 

In reference to such triplicate agreement and as a condi- 
tion precedent on the part of Eliphalet Nott to his assent- 214 
ing thereto, it was agreed that the bond given by the party 
of the first part to the party of the second part, should be 
given and held on condition that the said amount should 
be considered as received on the suit pending at the time 
between Union College and Eliphalet Nott, President, and 
John B. Yates, Archibald Mclntyre, Henry Yates, James 
Mclntyre and John Ely, Junior, before the Chancellor, as 
per bill filed by said college and said Eliphalet Nott 26th 
May, 1834 ; and that the portion of the avails thereof which 
on a settlement to be made between the said Eliphalet Nott 215 
and Union College according to a resolution passed July 28, 
1837, approving of the report of the finance committee, 
shall be credited to the said Eliphalet Nott in the fund 
specified in said report ; after which the said triplicate agree- 
ment was executed, and the whole controversy amicably 
disposed of. 

W. L. MARCY, 
A. C. FLAGG, 

C'OTTtlHiXttCE 

Batid Nov. 15, 1838. ELIPHALET NOTT. 

XXVIII. 

SETTLEMENT WITH YATES, Sf'lNTYRE, SLY AND M'lNTYRE, FOR 216 
LOTTERIES, WITH COPY OF BOND, 

Henry Yates, Archibald Mclntyre and others, the trus- 
tees of Union College, acting through a committee appoint- 
ed for that purpose, and Eliphalet Nott, agree, 



52 

That Yates, Mclntyre and others pay to the trustees of 
Union College one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for 
which they are to give a bond. 

That the trustees of Union College assign to Yates, Mc- 
lntyre, &c, the bond and mortgage of John B. Yates, for 
$55,000, surrender certain unpaid notes amounting to $19,- 

217 448.47, and pay a certain debt of the college of physicians 
and surgeons, amounting to $20,000, for which notes had 
been given to the Mew-York Insurance company, upon the 
payment of the bond for $150,000. 

The parties release each other from all suits, controver- 
sies, actions and claims of actions. 
Signed and sealed by 

HENRY YATES, 
ARCH. McINTYRE, 
JOHN ELY, Jr., 

218 A. McINTYRE, Jr. 

ELIPHALET NOTT. 

W. L. MARCY, Gov., 
A C. FLAGG, Comp; 
JOHN A. DIX, Sec. of State, 
Committee of Union College, and under College seal, 

XXIX. 

Know all men by these presents, that we, Henry Yates, 
of the city of New-York, Archibald Mclntyre, of the city 

219 of Albany, John Ely, jr., of the city and county of Phila- 
delphia, and Archibald Mclntyre, of the county of Mont- 
gomery, and State of New- York, are held and firmly bound 
unto the trustrees of Union College, in the town of Sche- 
nectady, in the State of New- York, in the sum of three hun- 
dred thousand dollars, lawful money cf the United States 
of America^ to be paid to said trustees of Union College or 
their certain attorney, successors or assigns, the which 
payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, 
our heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these 

220 presents, sealed with our seals, and dated the 27th July, 
1837. The condition of this obligation is such that if the 
above bounden Henry Yates, Archibald Mclntyre, John 
Ely, jr., and Archibald Mclntyre, jr., their heirs, execu- 
tors, administrators, or any of them shall and do well and 
truly pay, or cause to be paid unto the above mentioned 
trustees of Union College, or to their certain attorney, exe 
cutor, administrators or assigns, the just and full sum of 
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, as follows : Ten 
thousand dollars, part thereof, on the first day of Septem- 

221 ber next, and the remainder of said sum being one hun- 
dred and forty thousand dollars, in ten equal annual pay- 
ments, with lawful interest from the first day of August 



53 

next on such sums as may be unpaid yearly, with a right 
to pay any part thereof before due, and to have interest 
allowed for the same, without any fraud or any delay, then 
this obligation to be void, or else to remain in full force 
and virtue. 

Signed, HENRY YATES, |L. S.l 222 

A. McINTYRE,|L. S.| 
JOHN ELY, Jr., (L. S.l 
A. McINTYRE, Jr., |L. S. | 
Sealed and delivered in the " 
presence of J. V. N. Yates. 
Arch. Campbell. 

XXX 

Resolution of 1845. 

Resolved^ That the treasurer be authorised to affix the 223 
college seal to a conveyance, and execute a conveyance to 
the President of such pieces or parcels of land heretofore 
conveyed by him or by Neziah Bliss, Esq., to this institu- 
tion, as shall be necessary (when reckoned at the prices 
stated in the annual report) to cancel any cash balance 
that may be found by the finance committee to be due to 
the said President on a final settlement with him ; and that 
the items forming the basis of such settlement, having been 
attested, be entered on the minutes of this board. Minutes, 
book C, page 192, July 22, 1845. 224 

XXXI. 

Extract from report of President Nott to the Trustees^ July 

1831. 

(See Minutes, p. 213.) 

That although contingencies might yet arise, that would 
prove ruinous alike to the contractors, the college and 
himself, still that they were apparently so far out of dan- 
ger as to justify him, perhaps, in communicating to them 225 
what he had previously more fully communicated to their 
committee of finance, to wit : 

That he had been obliged, in order to prevent the fail- 
ure of Yates & Mclntyre, and to enable them to go on with 
the lotteries, to render in their behalf, personal services, 
to assume personal responsibilities, and to raise moneys 
for their use, at different times, and to very large amounts, 
for which he was entitled by stipulation, to receive a por- 
tion of the profits of the lotteries, should any arise ; as 
there was now reason to hope would be the case, and per- 226 
haps to a large amount ; which amount, be the same more 
or less, it was, and ever had been (after providing for the 



227 



54 

services rendered and hazard run), his intention to appro- 
priate to the use of Union College, or some kindred insti- 
tution, connected therewith. 

That, with a view to this, he had procured the passage 
of a law for founding, in connexion with the college, an 
Institute of Science, the material provisions of which are 
as follows : 

(See § 4, 5, 6, 7, of act of April 3, 1831, Chap., 273, p. 342.) 

XXXII. 



Extract from the report of the President of Union College^m 
relation to the lotteries for the year 1832. 

It has been usual for the subscriber, while acting under 
a resolution of the board, investing him with the entire 
supervision of the literature lottery, to report, from time 
to time, the progress made therein, and the prospect of 
ultimate gain or loss therefrom. Although the original 
contract with Yates & Mclntyre required from them ade- 
quate security, this not being furnished, they were allowed, 

228 by the subscriber, to assume for the time being, the man- 
agement of said lottery on their own responsibility. 

For a time they were prosperous, and their prospect of 
ultimate success was great. 

Early in 1826, however, they became exceedingly em- 
barassed. From a statement made by them, at the time, 
it was apparent, that a loan, to a very large amount, was 
requisite to save them from ruin. 

One hundred thousand dollars was, therefore, raised for 
their use, by the president and treasurer of Union College, 

229 as heretofore reported to the board. 

The consideration allowed for the procurement of this 
loan, after providing for the expense and hazard incurred 
thereby, was, and is intended to be, in some way, applied 
to the use of Union College 

Soon after the procurement of this loan, and while the 
affairs of the contractors were in the most unpromising 
state, an act passed the legislature, authorising the mixing 
of the land prizes in the Albany land lottery, with the 
money prizes in the Literature and Fever Hospital lotte- 

230 ries, provided the consent of the institutions interested 
therein could be obtained. 

This act of the Legislature, in the opinon of Yates & 
Mclntyre, afforded an opportunity for making a contract 
which, though attended with the hazard of great loss, held 
out as the alternative, the prospect of corresponding gain. 

To enable them, however, to execute the contemplated 
contract, the consent of the subscriber, in behalf of the 
college, was necessary, as the mixing of the land and 



55 

money prizes, as proposed, would greatly increase and per- 
petuate the hazards to which the institution must be ex- 
posed, and his consent and co-operation in his own behalf, 
was also necessary, as the heavy responsibilities already 2 qi 
assumed by him, in behalf of the contractors, must not 
only be continued, in case such contract was to be execu- 
ted, but still greater responsibilities must also be assumed, 
in order to sustain their credit during the execution of the 
same. 

To induce the consent and co- operation of the subscri- 
ber, a specific share of the profits, whatever the same might 
be, was proffered to him by the contractors. 

Though fully aware that they were deeply involved, and 
that very large additional amounts must be furnished for 030 
their use, in order to sustain their credit during the prose- 
cution of the contemplated undertaking, the subscriber, in 
the hope of ultimately benefiting the college thereby, made 
up his mind to put everything at hazard, by consenting to 
share with them the responsibilities, and the losses or profits 
of the enterprise, in conformity to the stipulations then 
made and provided. 

This he did, however, with the intention, expressed at 
the time, and often since repeated, of appropriating, after 
providing for the expense and hazard by him incurred, his 033 
share of the profits, should any accrue, to the use of Union 
College, or some kindred institution connected therewith ; 
an intention never relinquished, and which he still purposes 
to execute, reserving to himself the right of determining 
the objects to which said profits shall be applied, and the 
time and manner of their application. In conformity to 
which intention, certain expenses have already been incur- 
red by the subscriber, as others may hereafter be, in the 
enlargement and improvement of the college site, or the 
buildings thereon erected, or in furtherance of those arts 034 
and sciences which it is the object of the institution to pro- 
mote. 

Had it not been for the passage of the act under which 
the contract, just alluded to was made, the amount of tick- 
ets belonging to the Literature and fever Hospital Lotteries, 
having been disposed of, said lotteries would, before this 
time, have been completed. 

How long the Consolidated Lottery, in which the afore- 
said lotteries were merged, will be allowed to continue, or 
what will be the result of its continuance, as the contrac- 035 
tors have ceased to report to the subscriber, is, of course, 
unknown. Had the same closed on the first of May last, 
it is believed that the entire amount to which Union Col- 
lege would have been entitled, would not differ materially 
from the entire amount of principal and interest on the 



56 

original grants made to said college, and to other institu- 
tions whose rights have been severally purchased out by 
that institution. 

This, considering the great and long continued exertions 

236 which have been made, and the mighty hazards which have 
been run, is indeed less than might have been hoped for ; 
and it is less, perhaps, than will, ultimately, be received. 
Should the present lottery be continued during the time 
suggested by the Attorney-general, in his report, losses may 
yet occur that will be ruinous alike to the subscriber and 
the college, or gains may be realized alike advantageous to 
both. 

For whatever profits shall arise from tickets sold in the 
Consolidated Lottery, over and above the original amount 

237 of tickets in the Literature and Fever Hospital Lotteries, 
reckoned at their scheme price, the subscriber will be enti- 
tled, by contract, to share the same with Yates & Mclntyre ; 
and whatever the amount, so shared by him may be, it is 
still, as it ever has been, his design to appropriate the same 
in manner aforesaid ; a design thus formally expressed, that 
the trustees may be induced to take measures for obtaining 
any contingent residuary benefits that may accrue to them 
conformably to provisions that will be found in the will of 
the subscriber, should his own life not be spared till said 

238 lottery is closed, and a settlement effected between him and 
the contractors, agreeably to stipulations formally entered 
into by them, and which will be found on file among his 
papers. 

All which is respectfully submitted. . 

ELIPHALET NOTT. 

XXXIII. 

President's Report for 1833. 

The Annual Report of the President of Union College to 

239 the Board of Trustees. 

Gentlemen : No material alteration has taken place in 
the concerns of the Consolidated Lottery, since the last re- 
port, except that the time of its continuance has, by con- 
sent, been limited to the year 1833. 

In relation to the president's fund, held in trust for the 
institutions interested therein, and which arose out of the 
Literature Lottery, afterwards merged in the Consolidated 
Lottery, it is only necessary to observe that one portion 
thereof has already been paid into the treasury of this 

240 board, another portion deposited in the Mohawk Bank, and 
the residue invested in bonds and mortgages. 

As to the additional lottery avails, arising out of the act, 
authorising the mixing of Albany land prizes with the mo- 



57 

ney prizes of the other lotteries, passed 1826, little need be 
said, as the rights and claims of the respective parties in- 
terested therein, remain the same as stated at length in 
the last report ; no further payments having been since 
made to the subscriber by the managers, under a special 
contract entered into with him, by virtue of the act afore- 
said, for personal services rendered, hazards run, and mo- 
nies advanced. 

Of the several amounts previously received by the sub- 241 
scriber under said personal contract, and held by him in 
his individual right, though appropriated to public purpo- 
ses, in the manner heretofore stated, the principal part 
has, with the approbation of the financial committee, been 
invested in real estate, situate for the most part in the city 
of New- York, and on Long Island or elsewhere, or in bonds 
and mortgages, or stocks of some sort, and the residue ap- 
propriated to repairs and experiments. 

The old college purchased and repaired by the president, 
remains still in his possession ; but he has not thought 242 
proper to proceed to the founding an institute on the 
amended charter of the old academy, to be connected with 
the college, as was contemplated ; because it yet remained 
uncertain whether the amount to be received by him, from 
the source aforesaid, will be equal to his former expecta- 
tions. 

The subscriber is aware that the best devised human 
plans may be frustrated, and that uncertainty attends all 
things future. He is aware that contingencies may occur, 
that will not only refute the calculations of profits he has 243 
made, but also involve him, the college and the managers, 
in one common ruin. Still, appearances are more favora- 
ble than on any former occasion ; and even though the 
residue of the percentage, stipulated to be paid the sub- 
scriber for personal services, hazards and advances, should 
not be fully received ; still there is reason to hope that 
something handsome will eventually be realized by the 
college, from the investment aforesaid already made, and 
besides, even though there should be some deficiency in 
the final payment of the percentage stipulated, sJll the 244 
subscriber may, if prospered in some other way, make up 
therefor, and this, if in his power, it would afford him 
pleasure to do ; nor will anything but necessity reconcile 
him to the ultimate disappointment of expectations, which, 
though not founded in any legal claim, he has contributed 
to raise. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

ELIPHALET NOTT. 

Union College, July, 1833. 

8 



245 



246 



247 



58 
XXXIV. 



"I was consulted some years since by Dr. Nott, the Pre- 
sident of Union College, as to the manner of conveying or 
devising certain property, to a very large amount, which 
he desired to give to the college, in trust, to establish cer- 
tain professorships, or otherwise, to promote the cause of 
education in that institution, which property had risen 
from a certain percentage, which Yates & Mclntyre had 
agreed to give him on the proceeds of certain lotteries, as 
compensation for his services and risks in raising moneys 
to save them from bankruptcy. I came to the conclusion 
that he could not convey or devise the property to the in- 
stitution legally, upon the proposed trusts, which were not 
such as the Revised Statutes authorised. And as he ex- 
pressed the apprehension that he might possibly die be- 
fore he could get a law passed authorising the proposed 
trusts, I therefore advised him to convey the property ab- 
solutely, taking such a writing from the treasurer or other 
proper officers of the corporation that he was entitled to 
control or direct the application of the property at any 
time during his life, and that he Could, in that case, after 
he had obtained the passage of the proposed law, take a 
reconveyance of the property, and convey or devise it to 
the corporation upon the contemplated trust. I also know 
Judge Paige was also consulted on the subject, and that he 
concurred with me in my opinion. 

REUBEN H. WALWORTH." 
Saratoga Springs, Nov. 21, 1851. 

Judge Paige's certificate 

243 a I do hereby certify, that after the President of Union 
College procured the passage of the act of May 14, 1840, 
authorising literary incorporated institutions to receive 
grants of real and personal property to be held in trust to 
found and maintain professorships and scholarships, and 
for other purposes, he applied to me to prepare, under the 
advice of Chancellor Walworth, a conveyance from him 
to the trustees of Union College of certain real and personal 
estate to be held by the latter upon the trusts authorised 
by said act. And I do further certify, that I accordingly 

249 prepared such a deed of trust and submitted the same to 
Chancellor Walworth for revision and correction, and that 
the Chancellor revised and corrected the same ; and that 
such deed of trust, after it was so revised and corrected, 
was delivered by me to Dr. E. Nott. 

«JVbr. 19, 1851. A. C. PAIGE." 



XXXV. 

STATEMENT APPENDED TO THE REPORT OF THE TREASURER OF 
UNION COLLEGE, MADE TO THE TRUSTEES, APRIL 27, 1853. 

Statement Mo. 1, of the original cost of the Old College 
building and site, and of its subsequent sale and repurchase. 

To cost of original site, $10,544 28 

To cost of building, 50,101 18 

To cost of incidental expenses on its purchase 

by the county, 1,388 93 

To cost of repurchase of E. Nott, 11,500 00 



250 



59 

Ji. Holland's certificate. 

"I hereby certify, that President Nott, after having pro- 
cured the passage of the act of May 14, 1840, authorising 
literary institutions to hold real and personal estate in 
trust, did employ Judge Paige to make out under the ad- 
visement of Chancellor Walworth, a trust deed to Union 
College of certain real and personal estate to a large 
amount, in accordance with the annual reports to the trus- 
tees, made by him in the years 1831, 1832 and 1833 ; and 
that such deed was duly executed, acknowledged and 
placed in possession of the treasurer of said college, with 
written instructions to deliver the same to the board of 
trustees on the event of his death ; and that such trust 
deed has been, and continued and still remains deposited 
in the office and in the keeping of the treasurer of said "^ 
College. ALEX. HOLLAND, 

Treasurer of Union College." 

November 11,1851. 

[The acts referred to by Judge Paige, are the following : 
Chap. 318, passed May 14, 1840, "An act concerning cer- 
tain trusts," p. 267. This act authorises real and personal 
property to be conveyed to any incoporated college, to be 
held in trust, to establish an observatory; to found pro- 
fessorships and scholarships ; to provide a place for the 252 
burial of the dead ; and for any other specific purpose com- 
prehended in the general object authorised by their respec- 
tive charters. 

Chap. 261, passed May 26, 1841, p. 245, in addition to 
the above act. It authorised, devises and bequests of real 
and personal property, to be made in trust for any of the 
purposes, specified in the above act of 1840.] 



253 



$73,534 39 2 54 



60 

By receipts for parts of origi- 
nal lots, $14,400 00 

By receipts from the lands ta- 
ken from the county on 
its sale to them, princi- 
pal, $40,722 06 

Interest, . . , 37,795 63 

Eents 249 10 

78,766 79 

255 By receipts for materials sold, . 2,061 41 
By building now on hand at 

original cost, . 50,000 00 

Amount to balance, being the 

profits on the West College, 71,693 81 

$145,228 20 $145,228 20 

Statement No. 2, of the original cost of the New College 
buildings and site, and of the sales of portions of the site. 

256 To cost of the lots purchased for the site of the New College 

buildings, $38,961 97 

By amounts realized on lot sold, $38,031 16 
By amount estimated as to the 

value of lots yet to be sold, 25,677 45 
By amount estimated as the 

value of the site remaining 

for college use 223 acres, 

$100 per acre, 22,300 00 

257 $85,998 61 $38,961 97 
By amount to balance, being 

the profits on the New Col- 
lege sites, $47,036 64 



$85,998 61 $85,998 61 

Profits on transactions connected with the 

West or Old College, $71,693 81 

Do. on do. connected with the East or New 
258 College, 47,036 64 



$118,730 45 



61 



XXXVI. 

RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE AUDITING COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE 

REPORT. 
[Records, Book C, page 482.] 

Resolved, That the auditing committee examine, on rigid 
principles of law and equity, the profit and loss account 259 
now submitted, of the president's agency in the financial af- 
fairs of the college, since his first connection with it as pre- 
sident, in 1804, and that they report the same to this board 
at its annual meeting, with any alterations that they have 
to suggest. 

REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE ON PROFIT AND LOSS 

ACCOUNT, JULY 27, 1853. 

[Records, Book D, page — .] 

The subscribers, the auditing committee, under the reso- 
lution of April 27, 1853, as follows : 

(Here follows the above resolution.) 

Find that to comply with its spirit and details will re- 
quire more of their time than it is possible for them at 
present to bestow. But they report that it appears from 260 
the profit and loss account submitted by the treasurer, of 
President Nott's agency in the management of the fiscal 
concerns of Union College, while acting under the plenary 
powers conferred on him by the board, that irrespective of 
funds gratuitously placed with the treasurer of Union Col- 
lege, referred to in the report of Silas Wright and William 
James, and irrespective of other large amounts placed with 
the treasurer without consideration, and irrespective of 
$30,000 which inured to the benefit of the college from the 
purchase by the agency, and with means turnished by the 261 
president, of the rights of the other institutions in the Lite- 
rature Lottery, there has inured to the benefit of the college, 
from the sale, purchase, and resale of the college by the 
president of the West College, and from the purchase and 
sale of lots in connection with the sites of the several col- 
lege edifices, including lots yet on hand, for sale. $118,- 
730.45. 

The college has lost, on loans and investments made by 
or with the advice of the president, (as chairman of the fi- 
nance committee,) during the same period, as follows : 262 

Edward James' bond and mortgage, $14,000 00 

William Anderson's bond and mortgage,. . . 5,000 00 

Philo Stevens' bond, 1,295 77 

Joshua Monroe's bond and mortgage, 2,305 10 



62 



Rens. and Saratoga Ins. Co. stock, 

B. Nott's bond, { . . , 


930 00 
700 00 




|24,230 87 



$2,459 


17 


2,509 


6Q 


2,490 


83 


655 


75 


18,115 41 



263 To which may perhaps be added a small contingent loss 
on the amounts held by the college in the following stocks, 
viz: 
In the Schen'y and Saratoga Plank Road, . . . 

the Schenectady Steam Mills, 

the Schenectady Locomotive Manufactory,. 

the Schenectady Marble and Cement Co... 



264 

But even though this should be the case, the college 
would, as appears from the statement of the treasurer, be 
more than compensated for such loss, by the increased va- 
lue which has been given to lots belonging to the institu- 
tion, by thus opening a plank road through property 
belonging to the college, and the establishment of an im- 
portant manufactory on lots adjoining said road. 
Submitted July 27, 1853. 

JAMES BROWN, 

265 R. M. BLATCHFORD, 

J. L. LANE, 

Auditing Committee. 

XXXVII. 

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE STOCK IN THE COMMERCIAL BANK 
OFALEANY. 

Extract from assignment of H. JVott & Co., Dec. 20, 1836. 

In the second place, to pay the Delaware and Hudson 

266 Canal Company the sum of six thousand one hundred and 
twenty-nine dollars, the same being a debt due said com- 
pany and originally secured by certain stock of the Com- 
mercial Bank of Albany, and which stock was surrendered 
under an arrangement for the immediate payment of said 
debt. (This debt may stand in the name of J. H. Williams, 
who is the treasurer of said canal company.) 

And whereas, E. Nott, President of Union College, has 
from time to time placed in the hands of H. Nott & Co. 
certain funds, part whereof was the property of Union Col- 

267 lege, and part his own property ; and whereas from the 
mode in which the transactions took place there may be dif- 
ficulty in tracing the specific funds of said college into our 
hands, the same having generally passed through the said 



63 

Eliphalet Nott, and for which he is answerable to said in- 
stitution; and whereas we have this day accepted E. Nott's 
order upon us to pay the trustees of Union College the 
amounts which we owe on both accounts to the extent of 
his and our indebtedness to said college as the same shall 
be found on the adjustment of the accounts relative to said 
funds, in trust, seventhly, to pay the trustees of Union Col- £68 
lege so much of the existing indebtedness of H. Nott & Co., 
whether the said indebtedness be to the said Eliphalet Nott 
individually or to Union College, as will pay the amount 
for which the said H. Nott & Co., or Eliphalet Nott are 
found indebted to said college for funds received from said 
college on an adjustment of the accounts relative to said 
funds. 

Statement of Edward James, Esq. 
Messrs. Stratton and Seymour 269 

To assignees of H. Nott & Co. 
For amount of Novelty Works 

inventory, $61,419 30 

For amount of bricks to be de- 
livered, 6,000 00 

$67,419 30 

For amount of Water-st. inven- 
tory, 38,617 47 

Less goods sold, 135 18 

38,482 29 270 

$105,901 59 
Discount 20 per cent., 21 ,180 32 

$84,721 27 

To receive from Water-street debts, 21 ,000 00 

To receive 105 tons castings at 44 pr. lb.,. . 8,400 00 

$114,121 27 
===== 271 
OR. 
By amount paid Union College,. $78,214 27 
By amount paid Jonas Holland,. 20,913 86 
By amount paid Alonzo Potter,. 5,964 20 

By amount paid John Nott, 2,178 10 

By amount paid Edward James,. 6,723 24 

$113,993 67 



Treasurer's receipt to assignees of H. Nott 8f Co. 072 

Received 1st of September, 1837, of James Brown, James 
Hall and John Delafield, assignees of H. Nott & Co., the 



64 

sum of seventy-eight thousand two hundred and fourteen 
dollars and twenty-seven cents, on account of the indebt- 
edness of said firm, or of Eliphalet Nott (for moneys ad- 
vanced by the trustees of Union College to the said Howard 
Nott & Co., or to the said Eliphalet Nott, and by him passed 
into their hands, and for the payment of which in either 
case, to the extent of his or their indebtedness, provision is 
made in said assignment) the same being in full of all de- 

273 mands of every sort under said assignment, the said Elipha- 
let Nott having himself satisfactorily provided for the pay- 
ment of the further sum of about fifty-six thousand three 
hundred and ninety-eight dollars seventy-eight cents, in- 
cluding interest ; also advanced by Union College to Howard 
Nott & Co., through the said Eliphalet Nott, on the 10th 
day of June, 1835, and for which he stands charged in the 
books of said college, which receipt in full is given by vir- 
tue of a resolution of the board of trustees of Union Col- 
lege, at a meeting held in the college hall 26th of July, 

274 1837, a copy of which is hereunto annexed. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto affixed the 
[l. s.] corporate seal of the trustees of Union College the 
day and year first above written. 

JONAS HOLLAND, Treasurer. 

XXXVIII. 

INTERROGATORIES TO HON. JOHN A. DIX AND HON A. C. FLAGG, 
AND THEIR ANSWERS. 

275 In the matter of the enquiry into certain pecuniary af- 
fairs of Union College : Interrogatories to be put to Gen. 
John A. Dix, and to the Hon. A. C. Flagg, respectively, in 
behalf of Eliphalet Nott, President of the said college. 

1 . Was you an ex-officlo trustee of Union College, and 
during what years 1 

2. Did you ordinarily attend the meetings of the trus- 
tees and become acquainted with the financial condition 
of the college 1 and did you serve on any committees of 
the trustees charged with the duty of enquiring into and 

276 reporting upon the financial affairs of the college, or any 
of them 1 

3 Have you any knowledge from your acquaintance 
with the affairs of the college, or from your communica- 
tion with the trustees, whether the allowance made by 
law for the supervision and management of the literature 
lotteries, drawn for the benefit of Union College and 
other institutions, was claimed by the trustees of that col- 
lege as belonging of right to it 1 or if any expectation of 
receiving the amount of such allowance was indulged, 



65 

how, when, and from whom was it to be received, and 277 
upon what was such expectation founded % 

4. After the original contract made with Yates & Mc- 
Intyre, on the 29th of July, 1822, were there other and 
subsequent stipulations between them and the president 
of Union College, on or about the 4th of January, and the 
24th of January, 1826 1 

5. What "were the inducements and consideration of the 
said stipulations, and what dis; osition was to be made of 
the profits arising therefrom, over and above the sum origi- 
nally agreed to be paid by Yates & Mclntyre, for the pur- 278 
chase of the lotteries ? If such profits were to be divi- 
ded among any parties, who were the parties, and on what 
principles, and in what proportions was such division to 

be made 1 

6. Have you any knowledge of the subsequent stipula- 
tions made between Yates & Mclntyre, and the president 
of Union College, on the 30th May, 1826, and July 15, 
1830, in relation to the Albany land lottery, and the Fe- 
ver Hospital lottery % Had Union College any interest in 
those stipulations, or did the trustees, to your knowledge, 279 
ever claim any interest in them'? 

7. Were you as members of a committee of Union Col- 
lege, parties to a settlement with Yates, Mclntyre, Ely 
and Mclntyre, made on or about the 27th day of July, 
1837, in which among other things, Yates, Mclntyre & Co., 
agreed to execute a bond to Union College for the pay- 
ment of $150,000, and the college agreed to assign a bond 
and mortgage of John B. Yates, for $55,000, to the said 
Yates, Mclntyre & Co., and to surrender certain notes and 

to pay a certain debt to the College of Physicians and Sur- 280 
geons ? if so, please to state what and whose claims were 
embraced in the said settlement, and particularly, wh't 
was the consideration for the said bond of $150,000, and 
for whose benefit it was given 1 and in reference to the se- 
curities assigned and surrendered by the college, and the 
debt assumed by it to the College of Physicians and Sur- 
geons, what was the consideration and inducement for 
such assignment, surrender and assumption? Did such 
assignment, surrender and assumption, form any part of 
the consideration of the said bond of $150,000 ? please to 281 
state fully the circumstances, causes and objects, of the 
said settlement, as you then understood them ? 

8. Were you, as such trustee, acquainted with the fact 
that moneys and securities had been and were deposited 
with the treasurer of Union College, by Dr. Nott on ac- 
count, and subject to future settlement? 

9. Is there any other matter or thing within your know- 
ledge, concerning the interest and care taken by Dr. Nott, 

9 



66 

as president, and as a member of the finance committee of 

282 the college, in the management, improvement, and promo- 
tion of its funds ? if any, please to state the same. 

10. Were you or either of you knowing to the purchase 
by the college, in 1838, of the one-half of the Stuyvesant 
cove property, and of the Hunter farm? Did you, or ei- 
ther of you form any opinion of the value of those tracts 
at the time, from personal observation or enquiry? and if 
so, what was that opinion? how were the purchases of the 
said tracts regarded by the trustees at that time, in respect 
to their value as investments ? 

283 11. Were you consulted about, and acquainted with the 
loans and investments made by the Treasurer of Union Col- 
lege, under the general supervision of the finance com- 
mittee of the trustees, while you was a member of that 
committee ? And if so, were the acts and proceedings of 
the President, as chairman of that committee, approved by 
you and the other members of the committee ? 

12. On the resignation of Henry Yates as Treasurer of 
Union College, did you, as a member of a committee charged 
with that duty, make a very thorough examination of the 

284 fiscal affairs of the college? What other member of the 
committee, if any, co-operated with you ? What was the 
general result of that examination, in respect to the man- 
agement of the pecuniary affairs of the college, and particu- 
larly so far as the same had been conducted by the Presi- 
dent ? 

13. Are you acquainted with the fact that similar exami- 
nations were made by other committees and at other times, 
and particularly by committees of which William James, 
William L. Marcy, Silas Wright and John P. Cushman, or 

285 either of them, were members? What were the results of 
such examinations, in the respects mentioned in the last in- 
terrogatory ? 

J. C. SPENCER, 

for E. Nott. 

Answers by John A. Dix, to interrogatories propounded 
to him in the matter of the enquiry into certain pecuniary 
affairs of Union College. 

286 1 . I was, as Secretary of State, a Trustee of Union Col- 
lege from Feb., 1833, to Feb., 1839. 

2. I think I attended the annual meetings of the Trus- 
tees, as I will state more particularly, in 1833, 1834, 1835, 
and 1837. I w^as a member of the Committee of Finance 
for several years, commencing with 1833, and for nearly a 
week, from the 14th to the 21st Aug. of that year, I was at 
Schenectady, in company with Gov. Wright, then U. S. 
Senator, and also a member of the committee, constantly 



67 

engaged in the examination of the financial affairs of the 
college. I remember our examination was very thorough 287 
and minute, extending to the calculation of interest on all 
the securities belonging to the institution. I was at Sche- 
nectady on the 24th and 25th days of July, 1833, on the 
25th of July, 1834, on the 21st and 22d July, 1835, and on 
the 25th and 26th days of July, 1837. I presume the an- 
nual meetings of the Trustees were held on these days, 
though I cannot speak with absolute certainty. At the 
corresponding periods of the year, in 1836 and 1838,1 was 
at Sachem's Head in Connecticut. In fixing these dates, I 
have consulted a series of memorandum books, which I 288 
have been in the habit of keeping, and by which I can as- 
certain where I was on any day during the last twenty -five 
years. 

3. After the lapse of more than fourteen years, since my 
connection with the college was dissolved, I can only speak 
in general terms of its financial affairs. My recollection is, 
that the allowance made by law for the supervision and 
management of the lotteries, was never claimed as matter 
of right by the Trustees of Union College. My under- 
standing was, that the college was entitled under the law 289 
to about $275,000, and that the only expectation it had of 
receiving more, was from the voluntary assurances of Dr. 
Nott, who had assumed very heavy personal responsibilities 

and incurred great pecuniary risks, for which he was to re- 
ceive from Yates & Mclntyre a portion of the profits to be 
derived from the lotteries. Dr. Nott always avowed the 
intention of appropriating the amount of these gains, and 
the allowance for management to the college, or some lite- 
rary institution connected with it, but the trustees never, as 
I remember, claimed either these gains, or the allowance 290 
for management as of right, or assumed to control him in 
the disposition of them ; and his intended appropriation of 
them to the uses referred to, was always regarded as volun- 
tary. 

4. These transactions were before my connexion with 
the college. I have no knowledge of them otherwise, than 
as they became complicated with posterior transactions. 
I remember there were contracts between Dr. Nott, and 
Yates and Mclntyre, subsequent to the original one. It 

was from these contracts, involving heavy pecuniary re- 291 
sponsibilities and risks on the part of Dr. Nott, that the 
gains referred to were to accrue During my connection 
with the college. I think payments were made to the trus- 
tees by Dr. Nott from these gains or the allowance for 
management, which were treated by them as donations, 
and not as funds belonging of right to the college. 



68 

5. I cannot give to that question a more definite answer 
than I have given to No. 3. 

6. I have no distinct remembrance of these transac- 

292 tions. My ideas all resolve themselves into a general re- 
collection that the college was entitled by law to about 
$275,000 ; that it could not, under the law, receive a larger 
sum ; that the profits to accrue from the management of 
the lotteries and from the special agreements with Dr. 
Nott, after the college had been paid the above named 
amount, to advance money lor the purpose of saving the 
managers from the ankruptcy with which they were 
threatened at very critical periods, belonged to him ; that 
the college could only receive those profits as a donation, 

293 but could not claim them as of right. The trustees, there- 
fore, did not undertake to interfere with the disposition of 
these profits, but left it to him to determine the time and 
mode of applying them to the benefit of the college or some 
institution connected with it, in pursuance of the intention 
uniformly expressed by him. 

7. I believe I was, as a member of a committee, a party 
to the settlement between Dr. Nott and the college with 
Yates and Mclntyre and their representatives, probably in 
the year 1837. I urged this settlement very strongly upon 

294 Dr. Nott because I thought it would be better for him to 
take a much smaller sum than he considered himself justly 
entitled to, rather than to be engaged, at his advanced age, 
in vexatious and complicated lawsuits, which might out- 
live him. The amount agreed to be paid to Dr. Nott by 
Yates and Mclntyre was $150,000, and my recollection is 
that this amount was to be paid, on a suit brought by him 
under one of the special agreements entered into after the 
college had received the amount it was entitled to by law. 
I remember Dr. Nott thought they ought to pay him double 

295 that amount. I recollect that a bond of John B. Yates for 
about $55,000, on which, I believe, the interest had not 
been paid for several years, was to be surrendered, and 
that a debt of some eighteen or twenty thousand dollars to 
the College of Physicians and Surgeons, was to be assumed 
by the college. The surrender in the one case, and the 
assumption in the other, were in consequence of an alleg- 
ed overpayment by Yates and Mclntyre, which the college 
admitted. I do not remember the exact terms of the set- 
tlement. I give the principal agreements. I know Dr. 

296 Nott assented to them with great reluctance, and that in 
doing so he surrendered his own judgment to the earnest 
wish expressed by Mr. Flagg, Gov. Marcy, Mr. Wright 
and myself, to put an end to what we believed would prove 
an unpleasant and protracted litigation. 

8. I do not remember. 



69 

9. I do not recollect anything in particular. I was al- 
ways strongly impressed with the zeal and devotion of Dr. 
Nott to the interests of the college. I was associated with 

him as a member of the finance committee, as I think. In 297 
the pecuniary transactions with which he was connected, 
I remember nothing which impaired my confidence in his 
integrity and fair dealing with the college. On the con- 
trary, I considered him as deserving the highest praise in 
the purpose avowed by him of devoting to the institution 
a large sum of money, which he might, without any im- 
propriety, have appropriated to his own use and that of 
his family. 

10. I remember going with Dr. Nott to the Stuyvesant 
Cove property in the neighborhood of Novelty works, and 298 
that he pointed out to me a purchase he had made on 

the opposite side of the East river near Green's Point, 
known as the Hunter farm. I do not remember the value 
attached to them by the trustees. I think I was there at 
a period of great pecuniary embarrassment and depression, 
probably in 1838, and I remember distinctly that I con- 
sidered the property very valuable, and certain, if retain- 
ed, to enrich the proprietors. 

11. I cannot say how far, as a member of the finance 
committee, I was consulted in advance as to the loans and 299 
investments made by the treasurer. I think I was usually 
acquainted with them soon after they Were made, and that 
they were approved by the trustees. I remember this 
whole subject was brought before them at a meeting in the 
Governor's room at the Capitol in Albany, (should say in 
1837 or 1838) in consequence of some enquiries which had 
been made, and that it was thoroughly and satisfactorily 
explained by Gov. Wright, who was then a member of the 

U. S. Senate. 

12. I do not remember the year in which Mr. Henry 300 
Yates resigned as treasurer of the college, and therefore, 
cannot say positively, whether a thorough examination of 

its affairs, at that time, was made by me as a member of 
the finance committee. My impression is, however, that 
the examination of August, 1833, by Gov. Wright and 
myself, which was very minute, was consequent on Mr. 
Yates's resignation, though I do not venture to speak with 
absolute certainty. 

13. I know there were repeated examinations by the fi- 
nance committee. I have just referred to one by Gov. 301 
Wright and myself, in August, 1833, and I remember 
there was a laborious one by Mr. Cushman, of Troy. All 
these examinations, as well as I can recollect, were satis- 
factory to the trustees, and I remember nothing growing 



70 

out of any one of them, which impaired their confidence 
in the integrity, zeal, or good faith of Dr. Nott. 

Cross-examination of Gen. Dix by Mr. Vanderheyden. 
In reference to the second interrogatory, he says : The 

302 committee minutely examined the securities of the college, 
cast interest on them, and 'scertained the amount of the 
funds of the college; they had the college books and the 
treasurer before them; can not say that they looked at 
any thing but the books. 

They examined into the avails of the lottery, that was 
a particular subject of enquiry. Can not state in detail 
the mode of proceeding ; as to the seventh interrogatory, 
he says there were a number of suits ; there was a suit by 
Yates & Mclntyre, against the college for overpayments ; 

303 and Dr. Nott sued Yates & Mclntyre on their stipulations ; 
thinks there was another. 

He does not think he was particularly engaged in the 
examination of the matters embraced in the settlement of 
1837 ; but he had a general knowledge of them ; has no 
knowledge of any argument by Mr. Butler respecting Dr. 
Nott's right to recover ; never had any such argument be- 
fore him. 

He does not recollect whether the trustees or the finance 
committee authorised Dr. Nott to buy the Stuy vesant Cove 

304 property or the Hunter farm. 

It is not my recollection that the trustees gave Dr. Nott 
general powers to manage the affairs of the college, or per- 
mitted him to do so. The finance committee were very 
particular ; the financial affairs of the college were managed 
by them. The committee always met once a year, and 
sometimes oftener, but can not say how frequently. He 
does not recollect that Dr. Nott exercised any powers as 
chairman of the finance committee, without their instruc- 
tions or authority. Whatever was done by him, was re- 

305 ferred to the committee, and sanctioned by them. 

In answer to questions by the counsel for Dr. Nott, he 
says he has no recollection of any indebtedness by the 
college to Dr. Nott, or of any special deposit by him while 
he was a trustee. 

He has no knowledge of any funds belonging to the col- 
ledge having been appropriated to his own use by Dr. 
Nott, and he never saw any thing in the conduct of Dr. 
Nott but what was strictly honest and upright. 

Notes of the testimony of Hon. A. C. Flagg, given before 
the committee in answer to the same interrogatories above, 

306 October 13, 1853. 

To the 1st, he says : He was appointed Secretary of State 



71 

in 1826 ; in 1833 was appointed Comptroller, and as such, 
was a trustee. He retired from office in 1839, and was re- 
appointed Comptroller in 1842, and continued in that office 
until 1847. While holding these offices, he was ex officio 
a trustee of Union College; he was a trustee 19 " com- 
mencements" of the college. 

To the 2d, he says : That he believes he always attended 307 
the meetigns of the trustees while he was thus in office at 
Albany, but may have been absent a few times. He was 
on committees as afterwards mentioned. 

To the 3d, he says : From 1826, for a number of years, 
he did not get any particular information of the affairs of 
the college ; he was not on the finance committee until 
after 1833. As a trustee, I derived the information that 
a certain percentage, which I supposed was given by law 
to the college, was, by the trustees, agreed to be given to 
Dr. Nott for the management of the lotteries. About the 308 
time that Yates and Mclntyre got through paying up the 
sum they were to pay, $276,090.14, it then came to my 
knowledge, as a trustee, that there was a large amount 
that had accumulated in Dr. Nott's hands from the Presi- 
dent's fund. It was conceded by all except Henry Yates, 
that this sum was Dr. Nott's, he saying all the time that 
he intended to give it to the college or some kindred in- 
stitution. This fund the trustees did not pretend to con- 
trol ; it was left to the Doctor's control, and considered as 
belonging to him. 

Answering the 4th interrogatory he says : This fund 309 
was the amount allowed for management ; besides this, 
there were agreements or stipulations by Yates and Mcln- 
tyre, to pay him large sums for the risks, hazards and re- 
sponsibilities he had incurred. The percentage derived 
from these stipulations and agreements, were conceded by 
the trustees to belong to Dr. Nott. 

The trustees did not claim any percentage on any agree- 
ments or stipulations beyond the $276,090.14, except that 
the treasurer had pledged the credit of the college in aid 
of Yates and Mclntyre, and the college was entitled to a 310 
portion of the percentage in proportion to the liabilities 
assumed by the college and Dr. Nott respectively. He is 
speaking of percentage that arose long prior to the giving 
of the $150,000 bond, and having no connection with it ; 
and this proportion was fixed after the settlement of 
1837. (He refers to his certificate approving the propor- 
tions settled by the treasurer. See folio 202 of Doc'mts.) 

The 5th interrogatory he has already answered. 

To the 6th he says : He never learned that the college 
had anything to do with these lotteries or any stipula- 311 
tions concerning them. 



72 

To the 7th he says : There had been considerable litiga- 
tion. There was a suit brought by Yates & Mclntyre 
against the college for alleged over-payments ; then there 
was a suit by Dr. Nott against Yates & Mclntyre, to recover 
a large amount which he claimed. The verbal part of the 
compromise was made in my office. Gov. Marcy, James 
Mclntyre, Mr. Ely, and he thinks Archibald Mclntyre, and 
Dr. Nott were present. The meeting was brought about 
in consequence of a suggestion by Mr. Mclntyre or Y^ates, 

312 of a willingness to settle on surrender of certain securi- 
ties and. being paid a certain sum Yates & Mclntyre were 
to give a bond for $150,000, for the use of Dr. Nott. The 
college was to surrender a bond and mortgage of J. B. 
Yates, for $55,000, release the assumption of Yates & Mc- 
lntyre to pay the Comptroller's bonds tor $20,000, to A. 
H. Lawrence, and the college original responsibility to re- 
vert ; there were some notes of $19,000 of Yates & Mcln- 
tyre, which w r ere also to be given up. These securities 
were given up to pay for a conceded error in consequence 

313 of an erroneous estimate by the Comptroller, of the amount 
of tickets to be drawn, which was corrected by the Attor- 
ney General. 

The college had received their portion of the profits of 
this lottery, arising from that over estimate. The bond 
of $150,000 was given to settle the suit of Dr. Nott against 
Yates & Mclntyre, to recover the percentage they had 
agreed to give him in consequence of liabilities he had in- 

314 curred in behalf of Yates & Mclntyre, and which the col- 
lege conceded belonged to him. 

To the 8th interrogatory, he says: He has no recollec- 
tion of knowing about deposits by Dr. Nott There was 
some of the percentage that belonged to Dr. Nott, that was 
paid over by him to the college. 

To the 10th interrogatory (the 9th being passed for the 
present), he says : The knowledge of the purchases refer- 
red to came to the trustees, as far as he knows, after they 
were made by Dr. Nott. This was before he was a mem- 

315 ber of the finance committee. From the representations 
he received, he thought it was a very valuable property. 

The Doctor alw r ays avowed his intention to give all that 
he derived from the lotteries to the college, in such form 
as Chancellor Walworth, who was a Trustee, should say 
was legal. \ 

To the 11th interrogatory, he says. He was frequently 
consulted by Dr. Nott; and the general management 
of affairs was with the President and Treasurer. The 
Doctor was anxious to consult the committee, and when he 

316 had acted, he was in the habit of reporting to the commit- 
tee. Thinks he succeeded Gov. Wright on the committee, 



73 

though his predecessor may have been Gen. Dix; cannot 
state the year when he was a member of the finance com- 
mittee ; he had as much to do with the settlement of 1837 
(when the $150,000 bond was given) as any one. 

To the 12th, says : He thinks he was not on the committee 
at the time referred to. 

To the 13th interrogatory and questions founded thereon, 
he says : There were thorough examinations made by Mr. 
James and Mr. Wright, and by Gen. Dix and Judge Cush- 317 
man. The yearly accounts and reports of the Treasurer 
were generally examined by the committee ; but these were 
not so thorough as those he has spoken of. He considered 
Wm. James a sagacious man ; he was not a regular accoun- 
tant, but was a remarkably shrewd and sagacious man, and 
with Gov. Wright, who was a thorough accountant, there 
were not two men in the State, whom he would sooner se- 
lect to investigate the affairs of the college. Wm. James 
was a close, scrutinising man. He was a trustee, and died 
a few years after the report by him and Gov. Wright was 318 
made. 

To the 9th interrogatory, he says: He considered Dr. 
Nott very much devoted to the interests of the college ; as 
much as any man could be ; it was owing to his efforts, his 
sagacity and labor, that the college was enabled to realise 
even the sum of $276,090,14. He never saw anything in 
Dr. Nott, but what was perfectly upright ; he was entirely 
devoted to the interest of the college ; he was always doing 
extra work for it. 

On his cross-examination by Mr. Potted, who appeared 319 
for the college, witness says : He does not know or recollect 
that Dr. Nott was paid a salary for managing the lottery, in 
addition to his salary as President. 

The witness is asked the names of the Trustees who con- 
ceded that the President's fund, or the 2\ per cent fund, 
belonged to Dr. Nott ? The witness said he never heard 
any one question it, but Henry Yates ; does not recollect 
any one in particular, who acknowledged it belonged to 
Dr. Nott. He knows of no written agreement to give that 
fund to Dr. Nott, and knows nothing about it but the con- 320 
cessions that were made when the matter came up. 

On his cross-examination by Mr. Vanderheyden, he says : 
He cannot define the amount that was received from the 
President's fund. 

He might have looked at the law in 1837, but does not 
now recollect whether he did or not; he presumes he 
looked at the law and the documents that were necessary 
to enable him to perform his duties as a member of the 
committee ; he got his information from Dr. Nott, the Treas- 
urer, and the books of the college ; he did not get the terms 321 

10 



74 

of the settlement with Yates & Mclntyre in 1837, from Dr. 
Nott ; the Doctor was decidedly averse to it, and thought 
that he could recover a larger amount than $1 50 ,000 . Yates 
& Mclntyre were anxious for a settlement. Is asked, 
whether it was not considered, at the time, that Dr. Nott 
could not recover against Yates & Mclntyre ? Witness an- 
swers, No ; Gov. Wright was decidedly of opinion that Dr. 
Nott could recover, and Dr. Nott obstinately insisted he 

322 could recover a great deal more. 

XXXVIII. 

TESTIMONY OF NEZIAH BLISS, INTRODUCED AS A WITNESS BY 
MR. VANDERHEYDEN. 

Says he lives in Kings county ; knows about the Hunter 
point property ; it consists of about 140 acres of land, is 
narrow, and surrounded partly by water ; he exhibited a 
map of it. He got Gen. Johnson to purchase the property 

323 for witness and Dr. Nott, at the request of the Doctor. 
The original agreement was for $100,000 ; the sum of 
$4,800 besides, was paid for fishing rights and interest ; 
and $1,000 was agreed to be paid Gen. Johnson for his 
commissions; this was not paid; it was forgotten, I sup- 
pose. 

The property was bought with the view of selling it to 
the government, to enable the navy yard to be extended 
so as to get a rock foundation. Thinks it would have been 
sold to the government for a large sum if he had had the 

324 management of the business. The reason he purchased 
was because he knew from the government officers that 
they wanted to buy this property, This was intended to 
be kept secret ; but does not know that the government 
wished it kept secret. 

Dr. Nott said he had $100,000 college funds, which he 
would like to invest in the purchase. There was a pros- 
pect of making several hundred thousand dollars for the 
benefit of Union College and Dr. Nott ; but it was broken 
up by A.r. Van Buren. 

355 Witness believed a great deal of money could be made 
by selling the property to any one. Gen. Johnson told 
him it could be sold the next day for $50,000 advance. 

When it w r as purchased, supposed advances would be 
made to improve it. The agreement between him and Dr. 
Nott is given in the pimphlet appended to Mr. Beekman's 
resolution of April 8, 1853, Senate Doc. 68., at p. 12, 13. 
It was made in 1831, but not reduced to writing until 
1834. The agreement at p 14, was also signed by Dr. 
Nott. Witness never took the title to the property ; Dr. 

326 Nott took it in his own name t ; he was glad to get rid of it, 



75 

because no money was advanced to improve the property, 
according to agreement. Dr. Nott said he had no money, 
all the trouble came from Dr. Nott's skepticism. 

In 1832, he bought the Stuyvesant cove property, for 
which $1,500 was paid down, and he aave a mortgage for 
$16,000 payable in eight years. He made an agreement 
with Dr. \'ott, respecting it, who was to have one half of 
it at the original price, and advance the money to improve 
it, according to the agreement before mentioned. The real 327 
consideration was $8,750. He does not know what the 
consideration was in the deed from him to Dr. Nott, for the 
une-half; he did not mind what consideration he put in 
the deed ; he never objected to the Doctor putting in any 
consideration ; he did not care what consideration was in 
the deed. The next step was, Dr. Nott wanted to raise 
money, and he took my bond and mortgage on the undivi- 
ded half; and considering this like the other papers, I did 
not care what sum was put in the bond and mortgage. I 
had full confidence in the Doctor; I did not expect the 328 
Doctor would transfer or record it ; I supposed it would 
come back to me. it was not executed for my benefit ; 
Dr. Nott never advanced me any money for it ; I did not 
so consider it. 

Years rolled around, there was no m ney advanced for 
ten years after the purchase. Dr. Nott did nothing, and 
in 1842 I made a settlement because I wanted to have 
something of my own. This settlement related to several 
matters, viz: 1st, we bought the sandhill April 15th, 
1831, for $15,000; 2nd, Sept. 1, 1832, we bought the 329 
Stuyvesant Cove property ; 3d, October 12, 1834, we bought 
the Griffin property, 30 or 40 acres, for $13,800 ; 4th, 
March 8, 1836, we boueht the half of the Pre vost property 
for $3,357.85; 5th, Nov. 10, 1835, we bought of John 
Meserole, 30 acres ot land, for $40,000 ; of which $10,000 
was paid and a mortgage given for $30,000; for interest 
and expenses $7,200 was paid, and then it was given up; 
it is now worth $150,000; 6th, June 12, 1839, the Bush- 
wick and Deveaux meadows, containing 23 acres, were 
bought for $2,000. We sold it for $2,300 ; the purchaser 330 
was offered $60,000 for the property, but refused it, con- 
sidering it worth $100,000. 7th, Sept. 28, 1839, we bought 
stock in the Hallet Cove and Ravenswood turnpike, and 
there was pa-id on it $5,500 in all. 8th, the Hunter ferrn. 

Does not recollect that any money was laid out on the 
Stuyvesant Cove property between 1832 and 1839 ; very 
little, if any. Mr. James resided there. 

When Dr. Nott got the mortgage he said he wanted it to 
raise money upon, to carry on the improvements. He did 
not give the mortgage for any thing he owed Dr. Nott, did 331 



76 

not consider it in that light. Did not suppose the mortgage 
would be transferred or recorded, but would come back. 
He finds it was recorded at the request of Robert Stratton, 
who was Dr. Nott's agent, the same month it was given, 
Dr. Vott said it should never be recorded. He applied to. 
Dr. Nott to give up the mortgage and advance the money. 
He did not tell witness what he had done with it He de- 
clined giving it up until 1842, w r hen they settled and ex- 

332 changed releases. I told him they had better divide, and 
I gave up my right to all the property, except two-thirds 
of the sand hill. I gave a deed, at the same time, to Dr. 
Nott for one-half of the Stuyvesant Cove property. When 
he gave the mortgage and those deeds, he gave up the 
agreement w T ith Dr. Nott, ^nd they signed general releases. 
He would not have given up the property but for the 
mortgage, and the failure to furnish the money advances, 
and his anxiety to know what was coming to him. When 
he gave up the property in 1842, he considered it worth 

333 $500,000, if properly managed. 

The Ravenswood and Hallet Cove turnpike stock was 
subscribed for by Dr. Nott in behalf of the owners of the 
Hunter property. It was taken as investment for revenue, 
and for the improvement of the property ; if well managed, 
it would be a good investment. 

On his cross-examination by the counsel for Dr. Nott, he 
says that Dr. Nott generally paid the sums mentioned by 
him as having been paid on the purchase of the lands and 
for expenses ; but he had about $10,000 of his own money 

334 that arose out of his business in Ohio, which he thinks he 
paid. He had no accounting with Dr. Nott, no footing up 
of accounts, because they were in the hands of Mr. James. 
He never had any settlement with Mr. James, that he ever 
knew of. Mr. James figured up something, but I did not 
know any thing about it. My mind at that time was in 
such a state, that I knew very little what I did. The 
cause of this, was the not fulfilling by Dr. Nott of his 
agreement with me. He received moneys from Dr Nott^ 
and from Howard Nott & Co., as his agents, from 1828 up 
to 1842 ; does not know how much. He received moneys 

335 also on account of the Novelty steamboat. 

The witness was asked by the chairman, whether he had 
stated on any occasion that the consideration of $50,000 
was inserted in the deed to Dr. Nott for the one half of the 
Stuyvesant Cove property, at the particular request of Dr. 
Nott ? He said he did not recollect He added that he 
did not consider the consideration of any importance. 



11 



XXXIX, 



Testimony of edward james, when before the committee^ 

OCTOBER 18tll AND 20th. 

Edward James, called by Mr. Vanderheyden, and sworn, 
says : From 1830 to 1835, he had charge of the business of 336 
Howard Nott & Co., and was partly in business on his own 
account ; was employed by Dr. Nott, many years ago, in 
preparing his papers for patents ; otherwise has never been 
in his employ ; he never was connected with Dr. Nott in 
any business or enterprise, nor in any business in which they 
participated in the profits or losses. He, Dr. Nott and 
Mr. Staples once endorsed a note for a man in Canada; 
property assigned by the maker, was held by Mr. Staples ; 
witness and Mr. Staples were connected in the management 
of it ; Dr. Nott advanced money in that transaction. 33? 

About the year 1834, 1 purchased property in Saratoga 
county, of John F. King ; I purchased his interest in the 
water power, and some 70 or 80 acres of land attached to 
it ; I paid between eight and nine thousand dollars, by as- 
suming to pay his debt to the firm of Nott, Wing & King, 
and agreed to employ him at a large salary, eight or nine 
hundred dollars a year. These were the considerations for 
the purchase. Some small sums, but does not recollect 
the amount, were charged on the property. After he pur- 
chased it, he erected on it a building that cost him $2,000, 338 
and he built a machine shop also. 

In 1838, a gentleman from New-York examined the prop- 
erty, and offered him $20,000 for the one-half of it, and an 
agreement was concluded so far, that he gave his note for 
the amount, to be held until the writings were completed, 
and then to be given back to him. He was a responsible 
person, so much so that Mr. Staples often endorsed notes 
for him ; the arrangement, however, fell through. 

The first firm that owned the Waterford property, was 
Nott, Wing & King, consisting of H. Nott & Co., and Messrs. 339 
Wing & King, this was in 1831 ; he assumed the debt of 
Wing & King to H. Nott & Co., and bought them out for 
eight or nine thousand dollars. He mortgaged the premi- 
ses to Dr. Nott for $14,000, and the payment of it was guar- 
anteed by H. Nott & Co.; Dr. Nott had placed money in the 
hands of H. Nott & Co. The witness was indebted to H. 
Nott & Co. for the debt of Wing & King, which he had as- 
sumed on the purchase of the property, and he gave the 
mortgage in consideration of that indebtedness, and of three 
or four thousand dollars in money which they had advanced 
to him, and which they had received from Dr. Nott ; he 340 
executed the mortgage to Dr. Nott, instead of H. Nott & 



78 

Co ,, and thereby cancelled their debt to him to that amount, 
It was taken by Dr. Nott in payment of so much due to 
him by H. Nott & Co., and was therefore guaranteed by 
them to him. 

He afterwards procured $6,000 from Dr. Nott, to purchase 
the half of the land that King owned individually, and 
he paid the money to King. Witness, at first, said he had 
given a mortgage for $6,000 to secure this sum, but on re- 

341 flection, he said it was in a bond and mortgage for $20,000 
that he gave, to include this $6,000 and the $14,000 in the 
previous mortgage. He might have paid interest on the 
mortgage, but does not recollect doing so more than once ; 
was not called on to pay the interest. Dr. Nott never had 
any interest whatever in the purchase of this property, or 
in the business carried on there ; the witness held the prop- 
erty for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of Dr. Nott ; 
he never heard that Dr. Nott had any interest in Wing's 
patent water-wheel ; he advanced money to H. Nott & Co., 

342 which they may have employed in that way. 

The mortgage for $14,000 was guaranteed by H. Nott & 
Co., and they made ample provision for its payment, by 
their assignment ; he believed the property was worth many 
thousand dollars more than the amount of the mortgage, 
and he represented to Dr. Nott that it would be good secu- 
rity for that amount. 

On his cross-examination by the counsel for Dr. Nott, 
the witness said there was an amount of between 6 and 
7,000 dollars, of Commercial Bank stock of Albany, that 

343 came into the possession of Howard Nott& Co., from Union 
College. It was hypothecated by them and sold, and they 
provided for its payment in their assignment. It was paid 
for to Union College by their assignees, and a receipt given 
for it by the treasurer of the college. He has a statement 
of various stocks received by H Nott & Co., from Union 
College — Mohawk bank, Farmers' bank and Commercial 
bank stock amounting to $51,000. He stated an account 
with Stratton and Seymour, (a copy of which is presented 
to him, and he says is the same, it is printed among the do- 

344 cuments annexed hereto at folio 269, No. 37) in which he 
credited them $78,214.27, paid by them to Union College 
for H. Nott & Co This amount included the above stocks, 
and he believes also the amount of his bond and mortgage 
for $14,000 He says so, because there was no account 
between Union College and H. Nott & Co. , the college never 
loaned any money to that firm ; and there was nothing due 
from H. Nott & Co. to Union College but the amount of 
those stocks, which had been received through E. Nott, and 
their guarantee of his bond and mortgage. The difference 

345 between the $5 1 ,000 for the stock and the $78,000 paid 



79 

by the assignees, amounting to $26,000 about, can not be 
otherwise accounted for than as a payment of his bond 
and mortgage for $14,000, and the interest on it and on the 
loans of stock. He was in the employ of H. Nott & Co. 
until December 1836, and was then employed by their as- 
signees until 1839. 

Dr. Nott placed money with Howard Nott & Co. to be 
paid over to Neziah Bliss, and which they paid to him. 
Seeing the large sums that had been advanced to Bliss by 346 
H. Nott & Co., and which had been received from E. Nott, 
before the year 1833 he went to New-York to effect a set- 
tlement with Bliss : he took with him a statement of the 
amount, and compared it with Bliss, who brought out 
his books, a number of small memorandum books, to com- 
pare them with me. Bliss admitted the accounts were 
correct. They were for money advanced for the purchase 
of lands, part of which came through the hands of H. Nott 
& Co. from Dr. Nott, and the residue of which he knew to 
have been advanced by Dr. Nott. After they had agreed 347 
on the amount for which Bliss was indebted for the money 
advanced for the Novelty steamboat and the lands in which 
Dr. Nott and Bliss w T ere interested, Bliss and witness set- 
tled upon a sum which was the claim of H. Nott & Co. 
against Bliss and Dr. Nott. It was finally agreed that a 
bond and mortgage should be given by Bliss for $75,000 
on the Stuyvesant Cove property, and one for $50,000 on 
property purchased, or that was to be purchased on the 
other side of the river ; a part, he thinks about $30,000, 
on the Sand Hills or Bush wick Hills, and about $20,000 348 
on other property to be purchased. These securities were 
to discharge Bliss for the advances made by H. Nott & Co. 
Until he got a settlement with Bliss, he could not charge 
Dr. Nott with his proportion. These securities were charg- 
ed to Dr Nott by H. Nott & Co. in their account with him 
for his advances. This settlement did not include the 
steamboat Novelty; each of them, Dr Nott and Bliss, 
owned one halt of the boat, and were to own their halves 
after the settlement. 

The monies advanced to Bliss by H. Nott & Co., were 349 
received from Dr. Nott. 

Bliss did not leave him to insert what sum he pleased 
in the mortgage; the sums were proposed by him, and 
agreed to by me. He gave as a reason for putting the 
$75,000 on the Stuyvesant Cove property, that he consid- 
ered it so very valuable Bliss was also to give Dr. Nott 
a deed for one half of the Stuyvesant Cove property, and 
this, with the mortgage, settled the account. Dr Nott w 7 as 
not present at this settlement with Bliss, and did not know 
that witness went down to New- York to effect it until his 350 



80 

return. Bliss was so well satisfied with this settlement, 
that he said we (Bliss and Dr. Nott) could afford to lose 
a Novelty steamboat every year. 

Witness is by profession an accountant, and has been 
employed in the Canal Department, (the Auditor's office) 
since 1839. He has examined the report of Mr. Vander- 
heyden contained in the printed book, with a good deal of 
care. It is the most difficult report to understand, he has 

351 ever seen that was sent to the Legislature. I can not make 
out a statement from this book. I can not understand it, 
and can not make out how Mr. Vanderheyden has stated 
it. He has receipts and then I find the same things charged. 
Specifies an entry of $78,000 received from Stratton & 
Seymour, which he finds at different places at p. 140, at p. 
39, and notes of the same persons at p. 35, amounting to 
$13,712 33 ; he can not tell how to apply them, or whether 
they form a part of the other or not. The bond account at 
p. 186 contains two things entirely distinct; it is confused 

352 because it embraces two accounts. It purports at the head 
to be an account with the $150,000 bond, and yet in the 
body, it drops that bond and debits three different items, 
and then gives the balance $29,000 to Dr. Nott, without 
any reason; if a part belonged to him the whole did. Mr. 
Vanderheyden has given the college the benefit of $1 20,000, 
part of this bond, in this account, and has also given it the 
same amount in the sum of $355,000, the proceeds of the 
lottery, because the same items, J. B. Yates' bond, the 19 
notes and the $20,000 for the College of Physicians, were 

353 included in the sum of $433,000 at the settlement of 1828, 
and the $355,000 is the portion of the $433,000 which the 
accountant says belongs to the college. He has thus made 
this sum of $120,000 answer twice, and I think he has 
used it a third time, in not treating it as it was, a surrender 
by the college to Yates & Mclntyre of the securities given 
for an over payment. The accountant has expressed a 
doubt whether the balance of $29,000 should be credited 
to Dr. Nott, and has left it to the Commission to decide ; at 

354 pages 133, 135, he has done the same thing in respect to 
the Hunter farm and the Stuyvesant Cove property. These 
items, of which he had doubts, should have been placed 
in a suspense account, and should not be charged, as they 
have been in the accounts of actual transactions. 

The accountant at p. 6, makes Union College have pro- 
perty to the amount of $1,279,000, which was never given 
the college in any way ; and by the acts of the Legislature 
given in the appendix to his book, the grants were only 
$385,000. This large sum of $1,279,000 is made up so as 
to make it necessary to bring Dr. Nott in debt, $855,000. 

355 Deducting this $855,000 from the $1,279,000, leaves 



81 

$393,213.23, which is only $7,000 more than the sum sta- 
ted by Mr. James and Silas Wright, in their report of 1831, 
to be the amount of the college property, and it has not 
been increased since. 

The accountant's balance sheet (No. 2), is different from 
any balance sheet I ever saw. A balance sheet takes the 
name of the account as it stands at the head of the ledger, 
and the total amount of the debits and credits of each ac- 
count, not the items. 356 

This balance sheet No. 2, and the account of receipts 
and expenditures No. 3, are duplicates from p. 8 to p. 22. 
They are duplicates for all practical purposes, except the 
heading. This does not prove the account wrong, but it 
confuses. After p. 22, he is at a loss to find the same 
items in No. 2, and No. 3. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Vanderheyden. — When Bliss agreed 
to give the bond and mortgage for $75,000, not a word was 
said about its being given to enable Dr. Nott to raise money 
upon. 357 

Witness engaged in the undertaking of breaking up the 
concern of Nott, Wing and King, in order to protect H. 
Nott & Co., and in that way he got into the transaction. 

Howard Nott and Benjamin Nott, composed the firm of 
H. Nott, & Co. Dr. Nott had no interest in it. If he fur- 
nished capital, he would be allowed interest like any other 
person. Witness can not tell what capital Dr. Nott fur- 
nished them. H. Nott & Co., had great credit, it was un- 
doubted, their business being considered a good one. 

H. Nott & Co., never looked into or examined the busi- 358 
ness conducted at Waterford, Saratoga co., after witness 
purchased the property. He made the purchase "at the in- 
stance of John F. King, who was the owner of it. King 
had become embarassed by being indorser for others, and 
it became necessary that this property should be sold. 

No papers or receipts were passed between him and 
Bliss when they settled ; thinks he left his account with 
Bliss. 

Witness is asked if the $1,279,000 appear by the college 359 
books or otherwise to have been received, what objection 
is there to the account so stating if? Why is it incorrect? 

The witness says, because mere receipts are not evidence 
of the property on hand. The accountant, in No. 3, gives 
the total receipts at $4,469,000 ; this is a different account. 
A summary is a condensation of accounts — it is not neces- 
sarily a condensation of balances. A summary is a pro- 
per paper if correctly drawn up. The form of this sum- 
mary is correct, but the substance appears to me to be very 360 
incorrect. 

11 



The balance sheet No. 2 is confused in itself and by com- 
parison with No. 3. 

He says the accountant furnished him, at his request, 
with a statement of the deductions he had made from the 
$433,002.14 to produce the sum of $355,593.26, that he 
had charged, as received from the lottery; and that in 
tracing these items, he found the interest paid College of 
Physicians, at p. 33, short by $600 • when he was directed 

361 to p. 32, debtor side shows the college is charged with re- 
ceiving $606 from the Comptroller. He never could have 
discovered this without personal information from the ac- 
countant. 

The account at p. 186 of the $150,000 bond, is the 
most mysterious statement I ever saw ; it is a palpable ab- 
surdity. 

Re-examined, and shown a statement furnished by the 
accountant for the item in No. 3 at p. 41, and in No. 2 at 
p. 12, "interest from Yates & Mclntyre," (this statement 

362 follows) and the witness says it is a most extraordinary 
statement, and utterly unlike a regular accountant. 

XL. 

Statement of Accountant {above referred to?) in answer to the 
question, where he finds the item of interest received from 
Yates 4r Mclntyre, $45,572.08, charged by him? 
The accountant has heretofore testified, as regards the in- 
terest received from Yates & Mclntyre, and is now again 

363 required to give testimony to the same fact. He now pre- 
sents all that he is informed under this head, and if there 
should appear any disparity between this and his testimony 
already thrice given, he relies on the present statement as 
the correct one, and revokes all former testimony incom- 
patible with this. 

Before giving this statement, he would call attention to 
page 179, printed book, which succeeds the settlement by 
E. Nott, as agent, and under authority of the resolution of 
the board of Trustees, passed 24th July, 1822, to the words, 

364 viz: The above settlement," adopted by the accountant, in the 
accounts presented. 

At page 177, statement No. 35, the balance of interest on 
account, is stated at, $21 ,506 16 

At the same page, the interest on notes taken 

in settlement, 25,329 89 

$46,836 05 



The college books do not enter the Beebee 

draft, $19,530 00 

Nor the succeeding two entries 

of Beebee, 488 35 365 

And, 329 53 

$20,347 88 
But enter, as is supposed, in 
lieu of the above, J. Averell's 
bond and mortgage, as of . . 20,536 34 



$188 46 
Showing a disparity of $188.46, which is sup- 
posed to be accruing interest, 188 46 366 



$47,024 51 



Of the above 1st item of $21,506.16, being 
interest on the account, up to 1st August, 
1828, the accountant carried to the ac- 
count of six years interest, on the original 
grant, to make that account the amount 
actually raised under the grant, $10,552.60, 
say 10,552 60 



$36,471 91 



367 



The accountant then derives from Mr. Hem- 

ingway,the accountant of Yates & Mclntyre, 

the interest on seven notes, received 2d 

February, 1830, being the notes as stated 

in statement No. 35, page 177, due from 4th 

March, 1830, to 4th Sept., 1830, and which 

interest was, $1 ,583 78 

From which he deducts the in- 
terest on Yates & Mclntyre's 368 

notes, due, as stated on page 

177, above referred to, and due 

4th February, to 4th July, and 

which notes were paid 23d Ju- 
ly, 1830 ; less interest on Ter- 

hune note, 1,326 67 



257 11 



Also, interest on renewals of notes, due 4th 

Nov., to 4th Jan'y, as stated on page 177, 1,882 47 

Also, interest on renewal of notes, due from 369 

4th Aug., 1831, to 4th Dec, 1832,also in- 
terest on renewals of notes, due from 4th 
May,1832, 5,660 18 



84 

And the accountant enters the amount of in- 
terest on the 17 notes of Yates & Mclntyre, 
as stated at page 186, printed book, 3,226 40 

$47,498 07 
Against which he charges, disallowed E. 3STott 
370 on two notes, discounted by him 26th Nov. , 
1833, $15 64 

a a u 

u a a 

discounted by him 17th Jan'y, 

1834, 467 12 

Paid E. Nott interest on five notes, 
discounted by him, 17th Jan'y, 

and now returned, 1,443 23 

1,926 99 



371 



$45,572 08 



Testimony of Mr. Vanderheyden, in relation to the item of 
$45,572.08, interest received from Yates & Mclntyre. 

On the 27th of September, 1853, at Schenectady, he says: 
This interest is the item credited the college atp,186,187 ? 
as having been received on the bond of Yates, Mclntyre & 
Ely; afterwards, corrects this, and says it is the interest on 

372 the $150,000 bond, until it was paid,as appears by the col- 
lege books. 

[The foregoing written statement, makes it the interest on 
the amount due at the settlement of 1828, and on notes 
taken for the balance then found : — totally diiferent trans- 
actions from the bond for $150,000.] 

On being enquired of subsequently, he says : These items 
included all the interest provided for on the settlement of 
1828, and subsequent renewals of the notes then given, the 
total of which is $56,124.68, from which he deducted $10,- 

373 532.60, and added it to previous receipts, to make out the 
$84,000 of interest received from the State, leaving the ex- 
act sum of $45,572.08. 

[It will be seen by the above written statement, that there 
was no such total of interest as $56,134.58 — or the written 
statement is equally incorrect with the verbal explanations.] 



85 



XLI. 

[The following resolution of the Trustees of Union College 
upon the report of Messrs. Cushman and Dix, Doc. XXIV, 
should have been inserted immediately after that re- 
port, at folio 199 ante.] 

Resolved, That the foregoing report be accepted and 
adopted by this board, and that the Secretary and Treasu- 374 
rer be directed to carry into effect the recommendations 
therein contained. Book of Minutes C, page 55. 

XLIL 

Original agreement in full, on which the bond for $150,000 
was given ; Doc. XXVIII, folio 216 ante, being a mere ab- 
stract. [This original was produced after the abstract or 
memorandum was printed.] 

Articles of agreement tripartite, made this 27th day of 375 
July, 1837, between Henry Yates, John Ely, Junior, Archi- 
bald Mclntyre, partners of the firm of Yates & Mclntyre, 
of the first part : The Trustees of Union College, in the 
town of Schenectady, in the State of New-York, of the 
second part, and Eliphalet Nott of the third part. 

Whereas, the said Trustees of Union College and said 
Eliphalet Nott, president of said college, in the month of 
May, 1834, filed their bill in the Court of Chancery, against 
the said John B. Yates, Henry Yates, Archibald Mclntyre, 
James Mclntyre, and John Ely, Junior, claiming, among 376 
other things, that the said defendants were indebted to the 
complainants in the sum of $31,004.00 by them borrowed. 
And also a large amount under certain agreements and 
stipulations, as in said bill set forth, and praying, among 
other things, that the said defendants might be decreed to 
pay over to said complainants, such amount, as should 
appear on settlement, that they should be entitled to re- 
ceive. 

And whereas, also, Archibald Mclntyre, Henry Yates, 
James Mclntyre, now deceased, John Ely, Junior, and John 377 
B. Yates, now deceased, in August, in the year 1834, filed 
their bill in the Court of Chancerr, against the Trustees 
of Union College, and Eliphalet Nott, a Trustee of said 
college, claiming among other things, that in consequence 
of alleged mistakes in a settlement previously made, as in 
said bill was set forth, the defendants should be decreed 
to deliver up to be cancelled, certain promissory notes, 
amounting in the aggregate to the sum of about $1 9,448.47 ; 
and also, that a certain bond and mortgage, given by said 
John B . Yates, to secure the payment of the sum of $55,000, S78 



86 

should be assigned and transferred to the said complain- 
ants, and praying, among other things, that by a decree of 
said court, said complainants should be discharged from a 
certain promise to indemnify the Trustees of Union College 
against a verbal guarantee to said trustees, to provide lor 
the payment of $20,000, due from the College of Physi- 
cians and Surgeons, in the city of New-York, to the New- 
York Insurance Company. 

And, whereas, also the board of trustees of Union Col- 

379 lege did, at their stated meeting on the 26th day of July, 
inst, pass a resolution ia the words following, to wit : 

" The committee appointed at the last annual meeting 
of the board, for the purpose of settling, by compromise, 
the suits pending between the college, and Yates & Mcln- 
tyre having communicated the terms of agreement on which 
a settlement can be made, and the committee recommend 
to the board the acceptance of the terms as an arrange- 
ment which under all the circumstances it would be pru- 
dent to accede to ; 

380 " Therefore Resolved, That the said committee, or any 
three of them, be authorised to arrange a settlement of 
the said suits on the terms proposed, and to cause the cor- 
porate seal of the college to be affixed to any articles of 
agreement which may be made for that purpose." 

And whereas, also, under and by virtue of the foregoing 
resolution, the parties of the first part and the committee 
referred to in the said resolution for and on behalf of the 
said trustees of Union College, and the party of the third 
part, have come to an arrangement and settlement of the 

381 matters in controversy. 

Now therefore, for carrying into effect the said arrange- 
ment and settlement, the said parties of the first and second 
part do agree, as follows : 

§ 1. The said party of the first part, and the said party 
of the second part, do hereby mutually release the one to 
the other, the said parties of and from all suits, controver- 
sies and actions now pending by and between them respec- 
tively, and all claims, demands and causes of action out 

382 of which these suits have arisen. 

§ 2. The said parties of the first part in consideration 
of the premises (together with Archibald Mclntyre, jun., 
son of James Mclntyre, deceased), have simultaneously 
with the execution of these articles, executed to the said 
parties of the second part, a bond in the penalty of $300, 
GOO, conditioned for the payment of $150,000, as follows : 
$10,000, part thereof, on the first day of September next, 
and the remainder of said sum, being $140,000, in ten 
equal annual payments, with lawful interest, and from the 

383 ftrst day of August next, on such sums as may be unpaid 



87 

yearly, with a right to pay any part thereof before due, 
and to have interest allowed for the same ; which said 
bond is given for the claims and demands set up by the 
said parties of the second part, as well as the third part, 
against the said parties of the first part. 

§ 3. The said parties of the first part, do also hereby 
assign to the said parties of the second part, and their 
successors, certain bonds and mortgages, and certificates of 
stock, particularly described in schedule A , hereto an- 384 
nexed ; but such assignment is merely made as collateral 
security for the payment of the bond mentioned in section 
two, of these articles. 

§ 4. From time to time, as payments shall be made on 
the bond last mentioned, the parties of the first part shall 
be entitled to receive from the parties of the second part 
such part of the securities mentioned in schedule A as shall 
be equal in amount to such payments, and thereupon such 
securities so given up and returned shall be discharged 
from the assignment hereby made of them. 385 

§ 5. If the parties of the first part shall at any time be 
disposed to sell or assign any of the securities mentioned 
in schedule A, while held by said parties of the second 
part, then and in that case such securities so selected by 
the said parties of the first part shall be returned to them 
by the said parties of the second part, on their receiving 
the amount due thereon, or on their receiving other full 
and adequate security which shall be equivalent there- 
to in value and amount in the opinion of the said parties 
of the second part, in security as aforesaid, the said parties 386 
of the first part shall nevertheless be entitled to receive 
any interest that is now due or may become due thereon, 
which any of the debtors in schedule A may be disposed 
to pay, and the said parties of the first part are hereby 
fully empowered and authorized to receive the same. 

§ 7. The said parties of the second part hereby agree to 
surrender and give up to the said parties of the first part 
the said bond and mortgage now held by them against 
John B. Yates, deceased, and which shall be duly assigned 
by the said parties of the second part to the said parties of 387 
the first part, as soon as the bond in section two of these 
articles shall be given and accepted by the said parties of 
the second part. 

§ 8. The said parties of the second part shall surrender 
and give up to the parties of the first part promissory notes 
hereinbefore referred to, given by Yates & Mclntyre, now 
held by the said parties of the second part, amounting, 
without interest, to about nineteen thousand four hundred 
and forty-eight dollars and forty- seven cents, or in case 
they, or any of them, shall not be given up, the parties of 388 



88 

the second part shall indemnify and save harmless the said 
parties of the first part against them and every of them, 
and also against the payment of three several bonds given 
by the Comptroller in June, 1817, to Augustine W. Law- 
rence — one for ten thousand dollars, one for six thousand 
dollars, and one for four thousand dollars, which bonds 
are now held by the people of the State, and the parties 
of the second part hereby assume and take upon them- 

389 selves the payment of the same ; the above bonds being 
the same debt as referred to in the preamble to these arti- 
cles, as the twenty thousand dollars due from the College 
of Physicians and Surgeons to the New- York Insurance 
Company. 

§ 9. The said party of the third part, and the said par- 
ties of the first part, do hereby reciprocally, in considera- 
tion of the foregoing premises, release each other jointly 
and severally of and from all claims, controversies, suits, 
actions, causes of action and demands whatever, which the 

390 one party has, have or may have against the other. 

In witness whereof, the parties to these presents have 
hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first 
above written ; and the parties of the second part have 
also affixed the seal of Union College. 

Sealed and delivered 7 
in the presence of J 

The name of " John Ely, HENRY YATES, l. s. 

Jr.," interlined in the A. McINTYRE, ' [l.s. 

third line. JOHN ELY, Jr., l.s. 

391 J. V. N. YATES, A. McINTYRE, Jr., [l.s. 
ARCHd. CAMPBELL. ELIPHALET NOTT, [l.s. 

W. L. MARCY, Gov., 
A. C. FLAGG. Compt., 
JOHN A. DIX, Sec. of State. 

Schedule A. 

Delaware and Chesapeake canal bonds, $24,000 00 

Union canal bonds, 10,000 00 

392 Anthony Rosier 's bond and mortgage on lands 

in New Jersey, 16,500 00 

Francis Morris' bond and mortgage on lands 

in Jersey City, 4,500 00 

James W. Winne's bond and mortgage, in Al- 
bany, 2,800 00 

J. W. Dundas' bond and mortgage on house 

and lot in Rochester, 1 ,600 00 

Pittsburg city loan, and Pittsburg Gas Com- 

393 pany stock, 17,000 00 

$76,400 00 



89 



XLIII. 

Letter of Rev. Jacob Van Vechten, admitted in evidence, 

with the same effect as if verified by the oath of the 

writer. 

Albany, Oct. 29th, 1853. 

Rev'd and Dear Sir — In a conversation with me, in Mr. 
Pease's book store, about the 1st of May, 1852, Doct. 
Campbell said that Doct. Nott need feel no uneasiness, re- 394 
specting the fairness with which the investigation of the 
fiscal affairs of Union College would be conducted by the 
commissioners appointed by the Senate, and of which he 
was chairman ; that after the accountant had finished his 
work, and before the commissioners reported, Dr. Nott 
should have an opportunity to see what was done, with a 
view to explain any difficulties, and to correct any mistakes: 
and that he should have the benefit of those explanations 
and corrections in the report to be made to the Senate. 

With very great respect 395 

and esteem, Your serv't, 

(Signed) JACOB VAN VECHTEN. 

Rev'd Door. Nott. 

P. S. At a meeting of Trustees, before the books were 
given up, Chancellor Walworth expressed the opinion, that 
they ought not be taken away from the college, saying that 
the accounts would be garbled ; in this opinion, the whole 
board seemed to acquiesce. My own opinion was decided- 
ly on the same side, and when I heard of the books being 395 
taken to Albany, I felt convinced, and still feel so, that it 
was without the sanction of the board, and that the Presi- 
dent must have complied with Doct. Campbell's request 
solely on his own responsibility. J. V. V. 

XLIV. 

TESTIMONY OF GEN. GEORGE R. DAVIS. 

[Gen. Davis was introduced as a witness by Mr. Vander- 
heyden, and examined by him in relation to his charac- 397 
ter, as a man of truths and as to his integrity and skill 
as an accountant. As no part of the testimony on those 
subjects, by the other witnesses is given ; that portion of 
Gen. Davis', relating to it, is also omitted. But the fol- 
lowing, brought out by Mr. Vanderheyden, has an im- 
portant bearing on two of the points in the case. ] 
The witness is asked by Mr. Vanderheyden, to state a 
conversation between them, about an article Mr. Vander- 
heyden had published in the Albany newspapers, in which 398 

12 



90 

he charged Dr. Nott with having endeavored to induce Mr. 
Vanderheyden to alter the books of Union College 1 

No objection being made, the witness answered. 

Gen. Davis: I began by asking him (Vanderheyden) 
what he alluded to by the charge mentioned, what Dr. 
Nott had done to justify that charge? Vanderheyden said 
that Dr. Nott claimed that he should be credited for the 
Bliss bond and mortgage; he insisted, that by the books 

399 of the college, he was entitled to be credited the amount. 
I remarked, to Vanderheyden, that the fact stated by him, 
did not justify the broad charge he had made ; that he 
ought to have stated it as it was. To which he answered, 
that it might have been better to have done so ; but that 
the article was written under excitement, in consequence 
of a previous article that had been published, in which 
Dr. Nott charged him (Vanderheyden) substantially with 
perjury. I think he (Vanderheyden) said, that the Doctor 
insisted that he was entitled to the credit of the Bliss bond, 

400 and if he (Vanderheyden) did not give him the credit, he 
should not submit to it, and he would have a re-investiga- 
tion in the Senate, (a) 

Witness has thought that Vanderheyden was prejudiced, 
that he was under some strong feeling against him (Dr. 
Nott), but he always disclaimed any hostility to the Doctor , 
and asserted his desire to do him justice. 

In answer to questions concerning the ability of Mr. 
Vanderheyden, as an accountant, he said : I mean by an 
accountant, a man that takes up the books, and states what 
40 j is in them, without going beyond them. As such an ac- 
countant, I would have as much confidence in Vanderhey- 

(a) The following is the passage referred to in the question and in the answer, 
contained in an address, signed Levinus Vanderheyden, dated Albany, 24th March, 
1853, and published in the Albany Evening Journal, of the 26th March, 1853, and 
in the Daily State Register on the 28th of the same month. 

" In the month of February, 1852, the President met me by his own appointment, 
at the Troy house. He asked if we could not retire to some private place, as he had 
matters of importance to talk about, and I invited him to my house. On our arri- 
val there, he unfolded the object of his visit, which was, to induce me to make sun- 
dry new entries in the books of the college, then in my custody, the effect of which 
would have been to produce a change in his favor, and that to a large amount. He 
continued in earnest labor with me, to accomplish this purpose, until two o'clock the 
inn next morning, and, among other things, urged in substance, that unless I yielded, 
4UZ a counter report would meet me in the Senate, charging me with falsehood in my 
statements. I declined to consent to his solicitations." 

It will be seen, by his own statement, as proved by Gen. Davis, his own witness, 
what an atrocious falsehood he coined out of the interview with Dr. Nott. 

The only ground for the pretext, that " he had been substantially charged with 
perjury," as alleged by Vanderheyden, is the following passage, in the memorial of 
Dr. Nott to the Senate. Speaking of his suspending the printing of an answer to 
Mr. Beekman's report, and of his having delivered the books of the college to the 
accountant, he says : 

" Both these acts were performed by the undersigned, on his own responsibility, 
and contrary to the expressed opinion of the legal members of the board, who in- 
sisted that an examination of the same, by an accountant entirely ignorant of the 
transactions concerned, exposed to the influence of the accusing party, and in the 
absence of the party accused, could not be expected to be either correct or impartial." 
. - - There must have been a sad want of pretext, to compel a resort to this passage to 

*Uo find « a oharge substantially of perjury." 



91 

den, as in any man I know. But if the stating of an ac- 
count depends upon the construction of an argreement, or 
of a statute, or a principle of law, I should not have as 
much confidence in him, for he does not pretend to be a 
lawyer. 

On his cross-examination, he said : I was in the room in 
the State hall, where Vanderheyden was at work, a week 
or ten days before his report was made, and asked him 
when he would get through ? he said, in a week or so ; and 404 
he would then go over to Schenectady, with his memoran- 
dums. I inferred his purpose was to see Dr. Nott about 
explanations. I saw Dr. Nott, or wrote to him, and told 
him what Vanderheyden had said ; Dr. Nott asked me if 
I knew the day Vanderheyden would come over 1 I said 
I did not. Dr. Nott then wished me to ascertain the day 
when Vanderneyden would come over, as he wished to be 
at home when he came ; I saw Vanderheyden afterwards, 
and inquired of him ; he said he was not able to fix a day, 
and promised me he would inform me what day he would 405 
go over, so that I could inform Dr. Nott, that he might be 
ready to meet him ; Vanderheyden did not afterwards name 
any day to me, before the report was made. 

XLV. 

ANSWER AND STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER HOLLAND, TREASURER 

OF UNION COLLEGE, TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION BY MR. 

VANDEREILT, CHAIRMAN. 

What amount do the college books show to have been ^Qg 
received under the Lottery acts of 1814, and 1822, or un- 
der any contract made under or in consequence of said 
acts, or either of them — and give the time of receipt and 
amount — and time, and date, and amount, of any note, &c. 

Ans. — The books of the college show the following 
amounts to have been received. 

1. Under the act of 1814, there was received from the 
State, on account of the six years interest belonging to the 
grant, the following sums : 

1819. July 8. Cash, $14,823 00 407 

1820. Jan. 19. " 19,000 00 

June 16. " 1,505 15 

1821. Apr. 3. « 9,579 08 

Aug. 14. " 12,302 88 

1823. Jan. 9. « 606 00 

May 31. " 5,355 98 

31. « 6,844 98 

1824. July 21. « 2,436 33 



408 



Amount carried over, $72,453 4Q 



92 

Amount brought over, $72,453 40 

2. Under the act of April 5, 
1822, the college received from 
Yates & Mclntyre, under their 
original contract of July 19th, 
1822; and their stipulations 
of January 4th, and 24th, 1826, 
as follows : 

409 1823. 

May 31. Cash, $4,450 60 

July 30. « 1,035 30 

30. " 4,330 00 

Aug. 2. " '$1,000, |3,000, 4,000 00 

Oct. 18. " 9,163 00 

Dec. 11. « 11,662 00 

1824. 

Jan. 22- " 8,330 00 

Mar. 29. « 14,543 50 

410 July 4. « 5,311 00 

Sept. 1. " 17,958 60 

1825. 

Apr. 13. " 103,492 72 

1826. 

May 8. " 3,000 00 

1827. 

Jan. 31. " F. Gardner's B. 

and Mort'ge, 7,000 00 

31. " I. Riggs'Note,. 1,500 00 

411 31. " Archer'sB.&M. 16,000 00 
May 25. " 3 bonds Coll. P. 

& S. assumed, 20,000 00 
June 5. " R.Richardson's 

Bond&Mort., 4,000 00 
Aug. 4. " A B Shankl'd's 

Bond&Mort., 4,000 00 

15. L.Beebe 3 dft., $2,500 
15. do 1,182 

15. do 1,200 

412 Sept. 6. do 700 

6. do 1,500 

6. do 2,000 

6. do 683 

Nov, 1. do 3,000 

1. do 750 

1. do 550 

1. do 582 



413 



Amount carried over>. 



Amount brought over, $ $ 

Nov. 1. L.Beebe,dft.,. 1,000 

1. do 700 

1. do 2,383 

1. do 800 



$72,453 40 



Beebe, 2 J per cent,. 
Beebe, balance, .... 



Dec. 31 

1828. 

Feb. 11 

1827. 

Oct. 15. B. &M., J. B. Yates, 

Dec. 31. Note to A. Terhune, 



Interest received at time of 
settlement, 



In Dec, 1828, a settlement was made 
with the President of the college, of August 
1st, 1828, under said original contract and 
under said stipulations, when it appeared, 
that the college had received under said origi- 
nal contract of July, 29, 1822, the above sum 
of $374,849.93, and that there remained due 
on the same $4,314.06, and that there also 
remained due under said stipulation of Jan. 
4 and 24th, 1826, $133,069.83. For which 
balances, amounting together to $137,383.89. 
Yates & Mclntyre gave their notes, amount- 
ing, with interest to maturity, to $162,71 3.78, 
as appears by the receipt of the President, 
given at said settlement, as set forth at page 
1 77 of the accountant's report. Of the notes, 
the college received from [Dr. Nott, including 
interest to maturity, $95,165.09, as follows : 

Barrington's B. and mortgage, $18,654 17 



19,530 

488 


00 
25 


329 


53 


55,000 
2,000 


00 
00 


$317,124 


50 


57,725 23 



414 



374,849 73 



415 



416 



Van Schaick's 


do 


1,373 62 




Newell & Dyer's 


do 


2,062 33 




Payne's 


do 


8,579 33 




Van Dyke's 


do 


6,020 00 




S. & M. Smith's 


do 


1,000 00 




Notes of Yates & Mclntyres, . . 


57,475 64 










95,165 09 








$542,468 22 



417 



In all, therefore, the college received, under t}ie acts of 
1814 and 1822, the above sum of $542,468.22. 



418 



34 

The precise times when each of the bonds and mortga- 
ges and the notes were received from Doct. Nott by the 
college, in conformity to said settlement of Aug. 1st, 1828, 
cannot be given in detail from the books. The reason is, 
that Mr. Henry Yates, the Treasurer at that time, having 
become a member of the firm of Yates k Mclntyre, was 
most of the time in New-York, and did not, therefore, make 
these entries in detail, in the college books, but in mass, at 

419 a subsequent period, and as of a single date. 

(Signed) ALEX. HOLLAND. 

| On his examination by the counsel for Dr. Nott, he was 
asked to state the nett sums received by Union College ? 
To which he furnished the following written answer. | 

From the above total of $542,468 22 

Should be deducted the amount paid by Union 
College to the other institutions, $75,331 94 
And the amount repaid to Y. 

420 & Mclntyre, 94,448 87 

Making, $169,780 81 

===== 169,780 81 

Leaving actual amouni retained, $372,687 42 

Deducting from the above, the amount re- 
ceived by the college on the stipulation of 
Jan. 4, 1826, 95,165 09 

Leaves the amount received by the college, 

421 under the acts of 1814, and 1822, inclu- 
ding the principal of the grants, and the 

interest received on the grant of $200,000, $277,522 33 



XLVI. 

Alexander Holland was examined at intervals on va- 
rious subjects as they were presented, and at the close of 
the investigation reduced his answers to writing and pre- 
sented them in the following form : 

422 During the time I have acted as Treasurer of Union Col- 
lege, I have also acted as Secretary of the Board of Trus- 
tees, attended their meetings and kept their minutes. 
From the books and documents of the college, which I 
have examined extensively, as well as from the conversa- 
tions and acts of the trustees, I have learned that when 
Dr. Nott was elected President, the college was in debt 
between three and five thousand dollars, and had not the 
means of paying the same. 

423 When the act of 1814 was passed, granting Union Col- 



95 

lege $200,000, the college was in debt thirty thousand dol- 
lars ; and in 1822, when the act ot April 8th was passed, 
authorising the institutions to assume the management of 
the Literature lottery, two years interest (on the grant of 
$200,000) remained unpaid ; and the whole of the princi- 
pal remained unpaid. 

So far as my knowledge extends, or as I have learned 
from the books, vouchers and records of the college, and 
from conversations with individual trustees, (a) it was the 424 
uniform and admitted understanding of the board, that 
the 2 \ per cent fund was entirely under the control of the 
President and belonged to him. 

From the documents, as well as from the acts and con- 
versations^) of the trustees, I have understood that the avails 
of the stipulation of January 4, 1826, entered into to in- 
duce the President and Treasurer to raise a large amount 
of money to save Yates & Mclntyre from ruin, were to be 
divided between the President and the college pro rata ac- 
cording to the advances made, services rendered and ha- 425 
zards run by each in behalf of Yates & Mclntyre. 

Great gains have arisen to the college from the purchase 
of the rights of the other institutions in the lottery grant- 
ed, by estimating the time required for drawing the same 
at eleven years. Great gains also arose to the college, 
from the sale and repurchase of the old college buildings, 
and from sales of portions of the new college sites, of 
which I have furnished a statement, as treaturer, to the 
trustees, (Doc. XXXV, folio 253 to 25$:) These pur- 
chases were made by the advance of the private means of 426 
Dr. Nott, which was repaid to him years afterwards, at 
cost, and he has not participated in the profits thereof. 
Besides which, he has expended, gratuitously, considera- 
ble sums on the grounds, gardens, houses and out-houses 
belonging to the college, so that were all the losses on 
loans and bad debts charged to Dr. Nott, which are, by the 
accountant debited to him, and all the gains that have 
enured to the benefit of the college from the use of the 
private funds of Dr. Nott in its behalf, credited to him, he 
would, on a final settlement, be found to be not a debtor, 427 
but a creditor to the college, and to a large amount. 

The moneys charged to Dr. Nott as loans, by the accoun- 
tant, have usually been amounts delivered to him for in- 
vestment, or to be expended on the premises purchased by 
Dr. Nott, near New-York, and destined by him for the 
benefit of the college. And the moneys deposited with 
Stillman, Allen & Co., have been temporarily deposited on 
call, at 7 per cent, for the purpose of saving interest to the 
college, and not for the benefit of Dr. Nott. These trans- 428 

(a) The words in italic were objected to, and decided to be not competent; when 
the witness said that he could make the same declarations without those words. 



96 

actions were either authorised or approved by the finance 
committee, and on several occasions the same have been 
reported to the board in terms of commendation. 

Dr. Nott's acts in relation to loans, investments and the 
management of the college funds generally, have been ex- 
amined and approved by the finance committee, and re- 
ported to and approved by the Board of Trustees. 

I have never known of Dr. Nott's being engaged in any 

429 speculations other than those intended for the benefit of 
Union College, nor have I ever heard it intimated by any 
trustee, that he had made use, for private purposes, of any 
lottery funds belonging to the college. 

Had the accountant credited Dr. Nott's salary account 
with all the extra pay that the resolutions of the board 
would warrant, for extra services, for supplying the cha- 
pel pulpit, and for fire-wood, candles, and the amount 
allowed for repairs to buildings, as allowed and paid to 
other officers, and to which he was equally entitled, he 

430 would have found the balance largely in favor of Dr. Nott. 

I have personally examined the account of expenses in* 
curred and charges made by Dr. Nott in the supervision 
and management of the Literature lottery, and have com- 
pared the same with the vouchers, and find it correct. 

I gave the certificate printed at folio 250, (Doc. XXXIV) 
of the documents printed in behalf of Dr. Nott, at the 
time it bears date, and it is true. The trust deed therein 
referred to, is still in the keeping of the acting treasurer of 
the college. 

431 The statement of the accounts of Union College which 
Levinus Van Derheyden has made out, I have carefully, 
frequently and fully examined, and have not been able to 
understand many ot the accounts, from the fact of their 
being so mixed up with charges not found in the " books 
of account as delivered to him," or in "the vouchers" re- 
ferred to in those books. I could not have understood the 
accounts, owing to the manner in which they are made up, 
and to this introduction of other matter, without the ver- 
bal explanations of Mr. Vanderheyden. 

432 The entire tendency of these accounts, it seems to me 
very apparent, is to deceive and mislead, and give an ap- 
pearance to matters the very reverse of what was contain- 
ed in "the books of account delivered to him." Take, as 
an example, the account against Eliphalet Nott of over 
$800,000. Neither "the books," "the vouchers," nor any 
thing else, except the deceptive combinations of Mr. Van- 
derheyden, drawn from other sources than are mentioned 
in his affidavit, show any such thing. 

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Van Der- 

433 heyden, and in answer to the question who received credit 



97 

for the notes of Stratton and Seymour, for which the treas- 
urer gave his receipt to the assignees of Howard Nott 
fcCo'1 

The witness answered : The transaction was before my 
time. By the books of the college it appears that E. Nott 
received credit for those notes in his general account, 
amounting to $78,214.27. H. Nott & Co. had no account 
with the college in their own name ; being received from 
Dr. Nott, they were credited to him as agent for H. Nott 434 
& Co. 

I do not know from the books of the college or other- 
wise, that Dr. Nott ever paid Union College for the Com- 
mercial Bank stock. 

Dr. Nott has sold lots, parts of the Stuyvesant Cove pro- 
perty, to the amount, perhaps, of $200,000, which has been 
expended in improvements on the property, and paying 
incumbrances ; and the property has been very much en- 
hanced in value, so that when the improvements are com- 
plete, the property or its proceeds will be worth much 435 
more than the original property. 

He has understood that Dr. Nott has parted with por- 
tions of the Hunter farm to Jonathan Crane and Mr. Ely ; 
large tracts have been added by them to the Hunter farm, 
and extensive improvements have been made on the joint 
property. Dr. Nott has an interest in that property. His 
interest in it now is considerably more valuable than his 
original interest in the whole of the Hunter farm alone. 

He received the note of J. A. Yates from Dr. Nott, who 
endorsed it, but it was not protested. The circumstances 436 
of the loan to Mr. Yates were such that it was not proper 
to protest it. 

Witness is asked to show the evidence in support of a 
statement made by him to the committee of the Assembly 
in 1850, contained in Mr. Beekman's report, No. 146, in 
which he says that upon a settlement with Dr. Nott, the 
college owed him $41,340.57? And is asked to show the 
account of that settlement in the books of the college 1 

The witness answered, that the account spoken of never 
was in the books of Union College. There was no such 437 
account on settlement. In reports made by him, he had 
stated a balance in favor of Dr. Nott, on account of the 
moneys received on the $150,000 bond, which the witness 
had estimated by applying to those payments the resolu- 
tion of the Board of Trustees of July 26, 1837, (see Doc. 
XLI and Doc. XXIV,) directing a settlement with Dr. Nott 
for lottery percentage, according to services rendered, re- 
sponsibilities incurred and hazards run. This estimate 
was erroneous, because it was based upon an entire mis- * 
take. The resolution, I find, was passed before the bond 438 

13 



98 

was given, and in its terms, connected with the report ol 
Messrs. Cushman and Dix,on which it was founded, refer- 
red only to suras received on stipulations made with 
Yates & Mclntyre for percentages on the lottery. 

The sum of $41,340.57, with the interest, $5,309.28, was 
paid Dr. Nottlst September, 1848. 

Dr. Nott has given the college credit for it, in the deposit 
account certified by Messrs. Brown, Blatchford and Lane. 

He did not charge Dr. Nott the same price for the Far- 

439 mer's Bank stock that the college paid for it. because he 
expected it would be returned. It was all returned ex- 
cept $5,000. The reason he did not charge any premium 
on the stock, was, that as agent for Dr. Nott, he sold it at 
par, and for all that it could fetch ; he made enquiries re- 
specting its value, and could get no more. 

There is no account separately of the classical library 
fund ; they have a library account, and what there is be- 
longing to the classical library fund, is in that account. 
Former treasurers kept a distinct account of the classical 

440 library fund ; entries of expenditures appear on the books 
before the grant for this fund was realized or any part of 
it. It was mixed up with interest paid for a series of 
years, on loans in anticipation of the grant being realised, 
so that it would be difficult to tell whether the college real- 
ised any thing from it or not; and in 1850 he reported, as 
he believed, that nothing had been realised from it. In 
respect to the indigent grant of $5,000, he makes the same 
answer. 

In previous examinations of this witness, he testified 

441 that it appeared from the books of the college that Henry 
Yates was treasurer from 1807 to 1833; that during the 
latter part of his term, he was absent in New- York, and 
his duties were performed by clerks, one of whom, hisson, 
was incompetent. That the books of the college were not 
well kept by him at any time ; and that when he resigned, 
they were imperfect and in great disorder, and that no 
vouchers, receipts or memorandums, calculated to explain 
the college transactions during his term of office, ever have 

442 been or can now be found. A committee of the trustees 
were for a long time engaged in the examination of his ac- 
counts after his resignation, and found many errors in them, 
and a large balance against him. I have often, as trea- 
surer, been embarrassed in explaining transactions during 
his term, from the want of means to explain his accounts. 

Jonas Holland was appointed treasurer upon Mr. Yates' 
resignation in 1833, and continued such until 1839, when 
he died unexpectedly. I was requested by the President 
to come to Schenectady and take charge of the books, which 

443 I did at first temporarily. I was appointed to the office 



99 

soon after, and continued until 1851, when I removed to 
New-York, and although I am still treasurer, the active 
duties have been performed since that time by Jonathan 
Pearson, one of the professors. 

XL VII. 

Jonathan Pearson, Acting Treasurer of Union College, was 
also examined at intervals, and at the close of the in- , ^, 
vestigation he reduced the substance of his testimony 
to writing, as follows : 

1. That for two years past there has been lying in the 
safe of the Treasurer's office, an instrument in writing, 
purporting to be, and as he believes is, a deed of trust from 
Eliphalet Nott to the trustees of Union College, of certain 
real estate lying on the East river, near the Novelty Iron 
Works, in the city of New- York, called the " Stuyvesant 
Cove property," and of certain other parcels of land lying 
opposite to the above on Long Island, called the " Hunter 445 
farm," &c, [he produces the original deed executed by Dr. 
Nott and his wife, duly acknowledged and re-acknowledged 
several times, the last time in October, J 853. | 

2. That he has made long and diligent searches for vouch- 
ers of payments made during the treasury ship of Henry 
Yates, Esq., and has been able to find none. 

3. That the whole amount of bonds, mortgages, notes, 
contracts and leases, belonging to Union College on Jan. 1, 
1853, was $103,100.26, and that he has verified this amount 

by an actual comparison with the obligations on hand at 446 
that time. 

4. That the account books in daily use during the year 
1852, were at Mr. Vanderheyden's request, put into his 
hands, that he might bring his accounts down to the first 
day of Jan. 1853. 

5. That several times during the year 1852, he, the said 
Vanderheyden, informed him, the witness, that when he 
came to the lottery accounts, which he reserved till the 
last, he should visit Schenectady to consult Dr. Nott upon 
matters connected therewith. 447 

6. That between the 30th day of September, 1822, and 
the 2d day of April, 1833, the trustees of Union College 
were indebted to the Mohawk Bank for interest on over- 
drafts, $54,520.12, of which the sum of $36,877.87, was 
charged to and paid by H. Yates, Treasurer ; and that the 
rate of interest charged by said banks, was 7 per cent. 

The witness produced a statement of the account of 
Union College with the Mohawk Bank for interest on over- 
drafts, which is hereto annexed. He was then examined, 
and answered orally. The first column he says, was 448 
taken from the books of the Bank. The second col- 



100 

umn was made from old original papers in the Bank, of 
the dates referred to, and from information given by its 
officers. From other papers produced, it appeared that 
the Bank charged 7 per cent. The third column was taken 
from the books of the bank. The fourth column was pre- 
pared by the witness, and he believes it accurate. It 
shows the differences between the interest paid by the Trea- 
surer of Union College, and the interest actually due. In 

449 the course of his examination, he stated that four of these 
items of differences correspond precisely in amount with 
four of the items charged by Mr. Vanderheyden, as loans 
to Dr. Nott, in the printed statement No. 3, at p. 86. The 
two items of differences due April 1, and October 1, 1826, 
amount to $2,238.54, which is the exact sum charged in 
the printed statement as the second item. The three items 
of differences due April 1, and October 1, 1827, and April 
1, 1828, amount to $3,825.46, the exact sum charged in 
the printed statement as the third item. There are two 

450 items in the printed statement, the first and the sixth 
amounting together to $3,384.35, for which no correspond- 
ing differences are found. But the statement of differences 
annexed, shows that they amount in all, to $17,642.25, 
considerably more than the amount charged by the ac- 
countant. 

All these items charged by the accountant to Dr. Nott, 
appear on the books of the College as payments to him for 
interest, and in one instance, simply as a payment. 

451 Union College in account with the Mohawk Bank for interest 

on over drafts at 7 per cent. 



452 



Date. 

1822, Oct. 1,. 

1823, April 1, 
Oct. 1,. 

1824, April 1, 
Oct. 1,. 

1825, April 1, 
Oct. 1,. 

1826, April 1, 
Oct. 1,. 

1827, April 1, 
Oct. 1,. 

1828, April 1, 
Oct. 1,. 

1829, April 1, 
Oct. 1, . 

1830, April 1, 
Oct. 1, • 

1831, April 1, 
Oct. 1,.. 

1832, April 1, 
Oct. 1, . 

1833, April 1, 



Overdrafts. 



[Interest paid 
Interest due. 'by H. Yates. 



453 



$68,206 06 
71,017 80 
,73,094 34 
48,081 74 
72,401 93 
84,009 79 
74,120 53 
84,660 31 
84,586 89 
87,938 33 
86,125 52 
92,797 94 
96,457 19 
99,672 65 
99,813 48 
98,058 73 
102,122 57 
60,147 26 
52,354 53 
43,161 87 
33,527 20 
22,740 68 



$2,247 28 
2,401 28 
2,458 91 
2,279 79 
2,346 64 
2,728 11 
1,963 68 
2,665 67 
2,682 01 
2,983 47 
2,809 00 
2,863 60 
3,067 07 
3,152 64 
3,163 21 
3,451 00 
3,382 12 
2,024 88 
1,852 45 
1,743 91 
1,336 55 
916 85 



$54,520 12 $36,877 87 



$2,247 28 
2,401 28 
2,558 91 
2,166 65 
1,938 00 
2,138 27 
1,277 19 
1,493 80 
1,615 34 
1,754 16 
1,399 63 
1,676 82 
1,772 12 
1,853 87 
1,834 95 
1,815 32 
1,771 59 
1,776 82 
1,397 91 
975 05 
679 48 
443 43 



Difference. 



$113 14 

408 64 

589 84 

686 49 

1,171 87 

1,066 67 

1,229 31 

1,409 37 

1,186 78 

1,294 95 

1,298 77 

1,328 26 

1,635 68 

1,610 53 

258 06 

454 54 

768 86 

657 07 

473 42 



$17,642 25 



101 

XLVIII. 

[To enable the reader to understand the next document 
XLIX, it becomes necessary to reprint here, in connex- 
ion with it, the summary condition of the college given 
by the accountant in his report ; p. 5, 6 and 7. | 

(No. 1.) 

SUMMARY STATEMENT SHOWING THE CONDI- 454 
TION OF UNION COLLEGE ON THE FIRST DAY 
OF JANUARY, 1853. 

Original grants and endowments , viz ; 

From subscriptions, $7 ,433 1 54 

trustees of Schenec- 
tady patent, 24 , 954 02 J 

the Reformed Dutch 
Church, Schenec- 
tady, 8,307 63 455 

old academy debts,.. 563 92 

$41,258 73| 

Grants and endowments from the State of 
Mew- York, viz ; 

Act April 9, 1 795, irrespec- 
tive of interest, $269 58 

Act April 11, 1796, irre- 
spective of interest, 10,000 00 

Act March 30, 1797, irre- 456 

spective of interest, .... 1 , 500 00 

Act March 7, 1800, irre- 
spective of interest, 10,000 00 

Act March 7, 1800, irre- 
spective of interest, .... 43 , 656 44 

Act April 8,1801,? _ 0R4 fi2 

Act April 3, 1802, \ 15 > 084 82 

Act March 30, 1805, irre- 
spective of interest, 80,000 00 

Act April 13, 1814, irre- ^ 457 

spective of interest, I .55 5 oo 2H 

Act April 3, 1822, irre- [ 6 ^^ 6 Zb 
spective of interest, J 

Act April 5, 1822, super- 
vision and management 
of lotteries, 104,732 54 

Six years interest received 

on act April 13, 1814,.. 84,000 00 

Total grants from Legislature, .... |704 ,836 64 458 

Amount carried forward,.. $ 



102 

Amount brought forward, 1704,836 64 

Bequest from Abraham 

Yates jr., 250 00 

Bequest from Goldsbrow 

Banyer, 500 00 

Grant from Presbytery of 

Albany, 35 00 

785 00 

459 From proceeds of sale of West College 

buildings and site, 78 ,766 79 £ 

Debts owing by Union College, 21 ,260 07 

Revenue of Union College from 1795 to 

January 1853, above all expenses,. .. 432,095 61 

$1,279,002 85 
Cr. =====2 

West College buildings and 
grounds including the 

460 repurchase in 1836,.... $55,684 05J 
New college buildings and 

grounds erected since 

1812, 106,904 19i 

New philosophical hall 

erected in 1852, 6,281 37 

$168,869 62 

Real estate other than college grounds, 2,100 99 

Library and apparatus,. . . $22,748 51 
Classical library, 2 , 807 82 J 

461 Telescopes, barometers, &c, 753 00 

• ~ 26,309 331 

Investments, viz : 

In bonds and mortgages,.. $77,237 63 

Bonds, 6,165 94 

Notes, 2,042 26 

Contracts for land, 2,019 20 

Accounts,.. 25,411 44J 

Bank stocks, 18,332 90 

Plank road stocks, 2 , 300 00 

Manufacturing stocks,. 1,500 00 

462 West Troy durable 

leases, 7,311 81 

142,321 18i 

Interest accrued on above investments, 8,393 27 

Losses in investments, &c, 44 , 727 14 

Cash on hand, $73 52 

in bank, 414 04 

487 56 

Due from Eliphalet Nott, 885,789 62 

463 Total, $1 ,279 ,002 85 



103 

XLIX. 

Objections to the statement presented, by the Accountant, 

called No. 1 , and entitled " Summary statement, showing 

the condition of Union College on the 1st day of January, 

1853." 

The grant under the act of 1795, is charged only at 
$269.58, when, in fact, $3,750 was received and expend- 
ed, or accounted for by the committee. 

The item charged as having been received under the 4 ° 4 
act of March 30, 1797, $1,500 was granted, expressly for 
the salaries of professors, and belonged to the revenue ac- 
count, No. 4, p. 58, as an off-set to the credit given in that 
account for payments of salaries. 

The grant under the act of March 7, 1800, stated at 
$43,656. 44, was, in fact, $43,483.90. 

The item of $355,593.26, charged as received under the 
acts of 1814 and 1822, should be $200,758.20, that being 
the nett balance of Yates & Mclntyre's note for $276,090.14, 
after deducting $75,331.94, paid to the other institutions 4 *>5 
on the purchase of their rights. 

The item of $104,732.54, charged as belonging to the 
college, from the supervision and management of lotteries, 
was never received by it, nor was it ever claimed by the 
trustees ; but for more than twenty years has been conce- 
ded by them in various acts, resolutions and proceedings, 
as belonging to the President, individually. 

The item of $84,000, for six years interest on the grant 
contained in the act of 1814, should be $72,453.47, that 
being the sum actually received. The accountant has ad- ^^ 
ded the balance from interest received from Yates & Mc 
Intyre, that had accrued after the settlement in 1828, 
and on the renewal of their notes, and from the balance 
of interest against them on their payments. 

He thus converts interest into capital, and departs from 
his own principle. Besides, there is every reason to be- 
lieve, that the interest referred to is charged also in the 
revenue account, No. 4, at p. 58, in the item of $45,572.08. 
The explanations by the accountant, of this item, and of 
the operation now objected to, have been inconsistent, and ^67 
the last is quite unsatisfactory. (See Doc. XL.) 

The item of $78,766,791, proceeds of sales of West Col- 
lege buildings and site, is made up of principal of $40,- 
722.06, and $38,044,73^ interest; (see p. 159, of his re- 
port.) 

Here again interest is converted into capital. But a 
still greater objection exists against it. A part of this 
sum ($78,766. 79J) must have been deducted by the ac- 
countant from the cost of West College buildings, as shown 
in the summary prepared by the treasurer, and this item, 468 
or a portion of it, is therefore, twice charged to the college. 



104 

The item of revenue above all expenses, $432,095.61, is 
fictitious ; it has never been received, and constitutes no 
part of the property of the college. It is the balance of 
the revenue account No. 4, page 61. This, in its turn, de- 
pends on the item on the debit side of the same account, 
page 60, " interest due from E. Nott, on general account, 
$510,024.1 1 ." And this, we are informed by the account- 
ant in his testimony, is the balance of interest in the ac- 

469 count with Dr. Nott, beginning at page 81. The commit- 
tee need not be told that the interest charged in that 
account is upon items which are altogether denied by Dr. 
Nott, and which, in the course of the argument, have been 
shown it is believed to be without foundation. 

The objection frequently made in the above remarks, 
against the accountant converting interest into capital, and 
holding the college to account for it, is founded on the ob- 
vious injustice of the proceeding. This interest was a part 
of the current revenue of the college, and was expended 

470 in the current business of the college, and in payments for 
interest due on debts contracted for its buildings, improve- 
ments, repair, salaries, &c. 

In his revenue account (No. 4, p. 58, &c.,) the account- 
ant has stated the whole amount of interest received in 
different items, amounting to $358,744.62, and the amount 
of interest paid on loans (and no other is credited) at $232,- 
500.68, showing an accumulation of interest amounting to 
$126,243.94 ; a result contradicted by the whole history of 
the college. An exposition in full of this error of the ac- 

471 countant, is given in the argument for the defence. 

On the credit side the following items are questioned : 
The charge for the cost of the college buildings is great- 
ly below the amount actually paid. How this reduction 
has been effected will appear by the notes in the treasu- 
rer's summary. 

West College buildings and grounds, including repur- 
chase, are put down at page 6, at $55,684.05 ; in the ba- 
lance sheet, page 8, they are put down at $48,039.77 ; at 
page 158, at $57. 056. 70 J; and at page 160 the re-purchase 

472 is stated at $11,500, making the two items here credited 
$68,556.70 J, instead of $55,684.08, as here stated. Which 
is correct? 

Real estate, other than college grounds, $2,100.99. It 
is claimed that this should be $26,667.45, the college ac- 
tually having property on hand of that value, as proved by 
Mr. Holland. It is no answer to say that this sum does 
not appear in the books of the college. The account- 
ant has felt at liberty to resort to other sources than the 
college books, and even to the private books of individuals, 

473 having no connection with the college, for charges against 



105 

it. The Trustees are accountable for the actual value of 
this property, and no statement of the present condition of 
the college would be complete without it. 

The items for library and apparatus, and for classi- 
cal library, telescopes and barometers amounting to 
$20,309.33. There has been actually paid on this account, 
as appears by the books of the college, and shown by the 
treasurer, $33,817.34. No explanation has been given of 
the reason for the difference. 474 

The items, bonds and mortgages, bonds, notes, contracts 
for land, and West Troy durable leases, amounting to 
$94,776.84, do not represent the amount on hand, which 
is $110,523.55, as testified by Mr. Pearson, from actual ex- 
amination of those securities in his hands. The account- 
ant has stated that in addition to his amount, there is in- 
cluded in his balance against Dr. Nott, a bond and mort- 
gage for $12,000, which being added to his amount would 
make the whole $106,776.84, which is very nearly the 
amount stated by Mr. Pearson. 475 

The item of accounts ($25,41 1.44 J ) is too large. It is 
$25,077.22. 

Losses on investments, &c, $44,727.14. The list of 
what the officers of the college regard as losses, amounts 
to $57,101.79, the difference is not explained. 

The last item, due from E. Nott, $855,789.62, is alleged, 
on our part, to be entirely fictitious ; it is the result of the 
fabulous account at page 81. 

We contend that his summary of the condition of the 
college, is, on its face, an absurdity. In that statement he 476 
makes a deficiency in the assets of the college, to the ex- 
act amount of $885,789.62 ; and he makes out an account 
in detail against the President, corresponding to that pre- 
cise sum, to a cent ; evidently made up to fill this gap. 
No man will believe, that in the transactions of an insti- 
tution for 58 years, the exact sum, to a cent, necessary to 
balance its accounts, is owing to it by one individual. 

It is in vain for him to say that the books must balance. 
There is no must in the case. If the fact is that there is 
a deficiency or an excess not accounted for, let the result 477 
show it. To make the debtor and credit sides equal, when 
they are not equal 3 is a falsity ; and if that be the science 
of book-keeping, no honest man can profess it. 

L. 

SUMMARY OF THE CONDITION OF UNION COLLEGE ON THE 1ST OF 
JANUARY 1853, BY THE TREASURER THEREOF. 

Statement of amounts received from the State and other- 
wise by Union College without interest. 
1 . Original gifts and endowments : 478 

14 



106 

From original subscriptions (a) . • $7,433 1 5 

" Trustees of Schenectady Patent (a) . . . 24,954 03 

4 < Dutch Refd. Church, Schenectady (a) 8,307 63 

" Old Academy (a) 563 93 

" Bequests of Abraham Yates, G. Banyer, 

and Presbytery of Albaay (a) 785 00 

$42,043 73 

479 2. Grants from the State: 

Under the act of April 9, 1795, (b) (1) $3,750 00 

" " 11,1796, (a) 10,000 00 

" March 30, 1797, (a) 1,500 00 

" " 7, 1800, (a) 10,000 00 

" same (b) (2) 43,483 93 

" Ap. 8, 1801 & Ap. 3, '02 (b) (3) 9,378 20 

« March 30, 1805, (a) 80,000 00 

« April 13, 1814, (b) 276,090 14 
Less paid other in- 

480 stitutions, 75,331 94 



200,758 20 
Under stipulation of Jan. 4. '26 (b) 95,165 09 
Less ain't repaid Yates & Mel. (b) 94,448 87 

— 716 22 

On the interest granted on the act of 1814 ( b) 72,453 41 

$474,083 69 

481 Statement of property on hand — debts and losses of Union 

College Jan 4, 1853. 

1 . Productive and available : 

Bonds and mortgages, bonds, notes and contracts and dura- 
ble leases (b) (4) $103,100 26 

Bonds and mortgages in the 
hands of P. Potter attorney 

for collection 7,4?3 29 

$110,523,55 

Stocks, par value 18,460 (b) with premium 

482 added, cost,&c 22,132 90 

Real estate for sale (b) 25,667 45 

Due from undergraduates (b) 2,354 34 

New Philosophical Hall (a) (6) 6,281 37 

Accounts against individuals (b) (6) 7,084 81 

Deposit with Stillman, Allen & Co, (a) (6) . 15,638 07 
Cash on hand and in bank (a) 487 01 



2. Unproductive and in use for College 
483 purposes : 



$190,169 50 



107 

Old college buildings and site at cost, includ- 
ing additions and repairs (a)(7) $73,534 39 

New College buildings and site 
including additions aud re- 
pairs after deducting the cost 
of parcels sold (a) (7) 226,078 87 

Library and apparatus (b) (8) 33,817 84 

333,431 10 484 
Due from graduates, exclusive of in't (9) . . 44,814 01 

$568,414 61 

Losses have occurred as follows : 
Schenectady Water Works, .... $545 00 

Sacandaga Turnpike, 200 00 

United States Bank, 2,300 00 

Hudson Bank, 5,000 00 

Franklin Bank, 10,000 00 

On Mohawk Bank,. 30,000 00 485 

Hallet's Cove Turnpike,* 5 , 500 00 

N. Y. Poudrette Co., 1 ,677 09 

S. N. Bayard's note, 1 ,379 70 

Estimated on Bayard's mort.,. .. 2,000 00 

$58,601 79 
*Deduct error on Hallets Cove, 1 ,500 00 

$57,101 79 
Assumed losses : 486 

On E. James, B. & M 14,000 00 

William Anderson, ^ 5,000 00 

Philo Stevens, Bd 1 ,295 77 

J. Monroe. B. & M 2,305 10 

Rens. & Sar., Insurance Co.,. . . . 930 00 

B. Nott's Bond, 700 00 

$81,332 66 

$649,747 27 
Less debts,. 18,547 76 487 

$631,199 51 
Rec'd as pr. page 106, 474,083 69 

Difference, $157,115 82 



This difference arises from various sources, among which 
may be named the profit arising from the sale and repur- 
chase of the old College, the profits on sales of portions 488 



108 

of the new College site, and the profit arising from the 
purchase of the rights of other institutions in the lotteries. 

There is no interest charged or credited in the above 
statement j because whatever interest was received, was ex- 
pended in the ordinary business of the college. 

This is shown by the accountant's statement No 4, of 
revenue and expenses when divested of the sum entered 
there to balance the account, and the sum entered as due 

489 and unpaid. Thus that statement shows a total of reve- 
nue of. $1,462,297 92 

In which is included interest due from 

Eliphalet Nott, 510,024 11 

Showing actual revenue received, $952,273 81 

It also shows a total expenditure of $1 ,462,297 92 

But a sum is entered to balance the acc't 

of ; ... 432,095 61 

490 Showing the actual expenditure to be . . . $1 ,030 ,202 31 

Thus establishing that the actual expenditures have ex- 
ceeded the actual revenue, $77,928.80. The interest re- 
ceived, is therefore more than accounted for. 

NOTES. 

(a) Indicates that the item is the same as that stated by 
the accountant. 

491 (b) Indicates that the item is different from that stated 
by the accountant. v 

EXPLANATIONS. 

(1.) This sum was received from the State, and applied 
to the purchase of books and apparatus, by a committee of 
the board ; the sum stated by the accountant was a balance 
left in the hands of that committee, and by them paid to 
the treasurer, and afterwards expended. 

(2.) This difference, (about $200,) arises in part from 

492 the accountant not giving this fund credit tor the amount 
repaid on account of the title failing to 50 acres of the 
land sold. 

(3.) The accountant has charged, as principal, all that 
was received, whether for rent or interest, or on sales of 
the lands granted. The treasurer has only charged, as 
principal, the amount received for lands sold. 

(4.) According to the accountant's summary, page 6, 
deducting his item " accounts $25,41 1.44 J " (which is not 
in this charge,) and adding for West Troy durable leases, 

493 $7,311.81, which is in this charge; his amount should 



109 

be $94,776.84. But the amount here stated is taken from 
the actual securities on hand carefully compared. The 
difference is explained in the previous document, objec- 
tions to the accountant's summary. 

(5.) A credit is* given on this account by the account- 
ant, for only $2,11)0, because, as he says, the residue 
is the profit of a purchase of land. But we claim, that as 
the college is to be accountable for losses, it should be 
credited for its gains, in order to show its present actual 494 
condition. It certainly ought to be here, or in the revenue 
account, No. 4, p. 58, which the accountant says is a profit 
and loss account ; but it is not there, and thus the college 
is deprived of any credit for it, in any form. 

(6.) The above three items amount to $25,077.22, while 
the accountant's is $25,411.44, (p. 66, and p. 8.) although 
they agree so nearly in results, they differ in details. 

The items in his statement at page 60, which are deemed 
erroneous, are compensated by the above charge of sums 
due from under graduates. 495 

The above two items charged as the cost of the old and 

the new college buildings, amounts to $299,613 26 

The accountant allows for the same items, 

(p. 6.) 162,588 25 

The difference is $137,025 01 



which is thus accounted for. The accountant has appa- 
rently deducted from the actual cost of the old buildings 
the amounts received on sales of common lands taken in 
exchange, and interest there- 
on, (see page 159.) $78,766 79 \ 

And amount received on sales 

of part of original site, (p. 

159) 14,400 00 



$93,166 79 



The accountant has credited the college 
for payments to Register tor repairs, improve- 
ments, &c, which he admits includes ex- 
penses on buildings, $79,364.68, (p. 10.) If 497 
there be taken from this sum as applicable 
to buildings, 43.858 22 



We have the above difference, $137,025 01 



The treasurer, instead of deducting the amounts received 
in the above sales, from the cost of the buildings, has car- 
ried them in the shape of money or bonds or other securities 



498 



110 

received, into the general fund of the college, and credited 
them to it. 

(8.) This is the actual sum paid. 

(9.) This sum is actually due, although a part of it may 
not be collected. 

(10.) The difference between this and the amount stated 

by the accountant, $21,260.07, is owing to his having 

charged interest on the bonds due the Comptroller, and 

499 having included some small items owing to men in the 

college employ and others. (See p. 159.) 

These last items were transient, and have been paid. 
The interest above mentioned is not included, because no 
interest is reckoned on the bonds, mortgages, notes, &c, on 
hand, in the above statements. 

A. HOLLAND, Treasurer. 



500 



LI, 

Eliphalet Nott, in account with Union College, (Changes 

in forms of gifts.) 
1845. Dr. 

Aug. 1 . Consideration of conveyance of Stuyvesant Cove 
property to you, at 

this date, $150,225 42 

Less this sum never 
paid by the college 
on the purchase 
501 from Dr. Nott,. .. 16,367 85 

$133,857 57 

Interest thereon from time of con- 
veyance to Aug. 1, 1852, 65,590 21 

1845, 

Aug. 1 . Consideration of conveyance of one 

half of Hunter farm, 100,000 00 

Interest thereon from time of con- 
veyance to Aug. 1, 1852, 7 yrs., 49,000 00 
1848. 

Sep. 21 , Cash paid you, 46,649 85 

Interest to Aug. 1, 1852, 2 yrs., 10 

months and 21 days, 12,599 31 

Balance, 105,485 64 

$513,182 58 



502 



S & 13HM8 



Ill 

Gift of prize in lottery, $8,500 00 

do amount of President's fund (1 ), 1 1 5,640 53 
Balance, 34,936 20 

$159,062 41 



1834. Cr. 

July 2. N. Bliss' bond and mortgage, $75,275 52 593 

Interest to Aug. 1, 1852, 95,208 34 

1837. 

July 27, Cash received by Treasurer between 

to 1849, these dates from Yates, Mclntyre 

May 3. & Ely, on their bond for$l 50,000, 203,091 75 
Interest to Aug. 1, 1852, on the pay- 
ments, 167,656 97 



$513,182 58 

By balance brought down, $105,485 64 

Interest to Jan. 1, 1853, 5 mos.,. .. 3,076 57 

Deposit of amount of lottery prize, 8,500 00 

do. on account of President's 

fund, 42,000 00 



504 



$159,062 21 



If there be charged to Dr. Nott, what ought not to be 505 
charged, interest on what is 

called loan 5, $23,344 89 

do. do. 6, 1,160 79 

$24,505 68 

There is a balance still due him of, 10,416 00 

The amount of his balance above, $34,921 68 



Loans 1 and 2 are denied ; 3, 4, 7 and 8, are balanced ; 
9 and 10 are provided for. ^06 

(1) As this was a gift, no interest should be credited. But in fact, the interest 
Is absorbed by the expenses paid out of the fund. 






V\ 



'&7r£vnsA 



^ *• (S S> * *^ 



s <# . v • » . <-. ' * « s J# 



<* ' / ,. * s s A° 







o ^P 



^ 





*ko* 



^ 



%.d< * 



^ %> 






£ °^ 


















%d< 



<P <*> 







y ^ 



> o > * r ^2> \> o ^ * ,. < 



V 






cx * 





















<* 







- ^7 "V G^ * 
cP ^I\ '.^ ** cPV-**-°%^u ' cP , ^ 







\^»o, < 












\V 









y ^ v 













^ ^ *'i\VA r : ^x <; * r .A%^/k 




o 1 * 



<r "■■ " A G . 

" > ^ rO * * * ° > ^ 



W: 







^ -* o°\ G °Vr*\% 



•/%■ '- : /°'S ; /%$ 












^ 

%* 



A G 
r v * v * ° / 






G° v ^^ 






